Skip to main content

Full text of "A full inquiry into the original authority of that text, I John v. 7. There are three that bear record in Heaven ... Containing an account of Dr. Mill's evidences from antiquity ... Humbly address'd to both houses of convocation .."

^i? 






-*-*.! 



, J 






!* ) 



'^r 




.-^'4 



z 
'1 






{ 







i:^ ^ Q^ i^ «j:^ i:a. '^:2r 

OF THK 
AT 

PRINCETON, N. J. 

x> »j ::v ^'v -r I cj >r c» i.- 

SAMUEL AONEW, 

O V P H I I. A I) K 1. F H I A . PA. 

©^. - 



/hoiyi^ey^ ^ct7:^'/§5 f 



>3 e<^^^9 ©<^^^3 ?<^^^e s«^^^^ ©<^^^9'^'' 



I 



Case, 
% Shelf, 
D i^ooA-, 



V 



k 





A F U L L '^ Z^-e*--^ 



INQUIRY 



INTO THE 



Original Authority 

O F 

That TEXT, i Joh n v. 7. 77w€ art 

Three that bear (^cord in HeaVeJiy 8cc. 

Containing an Account of Dr. Miirs Evi- 
dences from Antiquity, for and againft its 
being Genuine. With an Examirmtior^ 
of his Judgment thereupon. 

Humbly addrefs'd to Both Houfej of Copvocafion 
nowafTerTibled. ^f^'' 

With aPoftfcript in anfwer to the Excufes offer'd 
to take off the Force of this Addrefs, 

By THOMAS E M LT N. 



The Second Edition. 

Jerem. xxiii. 28. Be that hath wy Word^ let him [peak my Word 
jaith fully : what is the Chaff to the Wheat ? faith the Lord, 



LONDON: 

Printed by John Darby in Bartholomew 

Clofe. M-DCCXIX. / 



r^ 



^i-m~y$h 



"y^ 



*&v»N' 




To the Moft Reverend 

WILLIAM 

Lord ABp of Canterhury, 
President; 

And the Right Reverend the 
B I s H o p s of the fame Pro- 
vince, his Grace's Suffra- 
gans ; 

And to the Reverend the C L E R c y 
of the Lower Houfe o( Convocation 
now aflembled} 

This Inquiry is Humbly Prefentcd and Sab- 
niitted) by 

The AvTNOR.' 



1 



Some Conjjderations on that 
Long'douhted Text^ i John 
c. 5. V. 7. 



' f^^"^^^^ I S poUible the laborioas Inqniries 

" ' ' ' jf majy Learned G-.r^Vi^/, who, 

vith great Diligence and Accnracy, 

i ^ V-' , ave lifted and fcaan'd the Oajjlck 

l-w^^..^^,..^, Author?, forne of 'em or no great 

moment *, may be efleeiE'd by others only as the 

ingenious Diverfions cf a dextroas and fagacious 

Mind : Cnce, when they have prefented their 

Authors a-new, with their Emendations and 

Corrections, in reftoring their old, or giving 

'em new Beauties*, 'tis oft of fo little Ufe or 

Confeqaeace to the World, that 'tis well if their 

painful Studies efcape the Cenfare of being 2 

laborious Lofs of Time. 

But when learned and jadicious Men do, with 
Serioufaefs and humble Rsv^ence, apply their 
Indaftry and Sagacity to calamine the far more 
important Writings that are to guide as in the 
way of Sakatioa^ when they Ihill difcover the 
Interpolations and Additions, the Errors or 
Defeds, which thefej as well as other Writings, 
by ofc tranfcribing, may in fo long a Tract of 

A Tims 



i 



Jn Inquiry into the 
Time have been liable to •, when, by diligent 
comparing antient Manufcripts and Verfions, 
and the frequent Citations of the Text in the pri- 
initive Cbriilian Writers, they become able to 
inform us certainly what h original and genuine, 
and what not, in any part of the Bible, more 
cfpecially where fome matter of great moment is 
concern'd •, their learned Induftry is then fure 
to be well employ'd, and will be recompenfed 
not only with the Applaufes of the Curious, biit 
the Thanks, and which is more, the real Edifica- 
tion and Satisfa6:ion of the ferious Inquirers after 
Truth •, who greatly defire to know what God 
would have 'em believe and do *, to have the Chajf 
feparated from the Wheats and the to aAokov yihcf^ 
the fmcere unadulterated Milk of the Word, for 
their fpiritual Growth. 

The peculiar Veneration due to the Sacred 
Writings, requires us to keep that precious De- 
fofitum as pure as pofllble, and free from all hu- 
man fpurious Additions. Why then (hould the 
learned Criticks exhauft all their Learning, Read- 
ing, and difcerning Skill, upon the Trifles of a 
witty or wanton Poet^ or a fabulous and remote 
Hlftoriarjj and wholly negled to make as fevere 
an Inquiry into the Holy Scripture, in which are 
the Words of eternal Life ^ in order to difcover 
what is the genuine Text, among the various 
Readings of different Copies ^ that we may build 
our Faith upon it, with the greatelt Certainty 
we can attain to ? 

I know, a late ingenious Author of the Dlffi* 
cuttles and Dlfcoiiragements which attend the Study 
of the Scriptures^ has pointed at the worldly Dif- 
coaragements, which, he judges, have tempted 
our cautious Criticks to turn their Studies ano- 
ther way. 1 wilh him Succefs in his Addrefs 

to 



^Authority of i John ^.f] 

to have thefe Hindrances remov'd j that it may 
be as fafe, where *tis more important, to do Jal^ 
tice to the Writings of the Apoftles, as of any 
other Author. 

The very Learned and Judicious Dr. Mill has 
done much for one Man, in his celebrated Labours 
on the Isle w Tefta men t ^ which ^ whatever may 
be wanting, will long ftand, as a lafting Monu- 
ment of his praife-worthy Zeal and well-employ- 
ed Abilities. A Specimen of what he has done 
upon one finglc f^erfe I am now to produce: And 
if upon a full and impartial Conlideration it (hall 
appear to your unbiafs'd Judgments, that there 
is abundant Evidence of a fpurious Addition; 
may I not juftly hope that the Rulers and Guides 
of the Church, who can better judge of fuch Evi- 
dences than the Unlearned can, will yield their 
cbnfcientious Compliance, and not render fuch 
commendable Inquiries fruitlefs, by refufing ta 
receive the Truth, and to reftlfy our Books^ 
when the true Reading is found ? Elfe to whac 
purpofe do Men inquire how it was in the hegin^ 
ningj if we irefolve not to return to it ? or to 
fearch after the right, if we will ftill adhere to 
what is wrong, and will rather maintain Cuftom 
than Triith ? 

This is what I (hall have fome right to infilt 
upon, and for the fake of Truth to prefs upon 
your Lord(hips and the Clergy ^ when I (hall have 
niade it appear, from his Dljfertation on i Jobft 
5, 7. that the Doftor himfelf has overthrown the 
Credil^^ ]hat Text, by the Evidence he has gi- 
ven tliat It is not original and genuine, tho he 
has not acknowledg'd himfelf overcome by it* 

In order to manifefb this, t (hall, 
L In the firft place f for the f^ke of othefs, 
who need more information) hy dowa the Sum' 

A a 0( 



Jn Inqidry into the 
of that Evidence which the Dodor has produc'd, 
to fhcw that thefe Words in the feventh Verfe, 
Tljere Are Three that bear Record in Heaven^ the 
Father^ the Word^ and the Spirit *, and thefe Three 
are One: or rather thefe Words in the feventh 
Verfe, In Heaven^ the Father j the Word^ and the 
Spirit ^ and thefe Three are One : And (ver. 8.^ 
there are Three that hear voitnefs in Earth : were 
not in the original Text, but have been added 
in later times without juft Authority. 

II. I fhall put down what he had to offer on 
the other fide, for eftablifhing the Authority of 
thefe Words, and upon which he has determined 
in favour of their being original and genuine. 

III. I fhall (hew the Weaknefs of thofe Argu- 
ments by which he endeavours to fupport the 
Authority of this Text: that fo it may be 
judg'd whether he had jufl: Reafon to make fuch 
a Determination, or we to abide by it. 

I. I muft lay down the Evidences produced 
againft the Authority of this Text^ as not having 
been originally in St. Johns Epiftle. Only let 
me firfl obferve, that the Text it felf, and Con- 
text, have no internal Evidence, to perfuade 
us that the Words are genuine: for as thefe 
Words themfelves are not to be match'd with 
any in the whole Bible, fo the Context is corn- 
pleat without 'em, and rather more fmooth and 
eafy. The three following Witnefles having been 
already diftindly fpoken of, it was very natural 
to fum 'cm up in one Conclufion ; There are Three 
that bear witnefsj the Spirit^ the Water j and the Bloods 
But the other three Witnefles had not been men- 
tion'd, to give occafion for the like to be faid of 
them. 

Nor was it likely the Spirit fliould be produc'd 
as auother Witaefs en Earthy if it had beea num- 

bred 



Authority of i John 5. 7. j 

bred before among the WitnefTes in Heaven* 
The Spirit was no more an Inhabitant of the Earth, 
than the Father and Word were \ who alfo opera- 
ted and gave their Teftimony, not in Heaven, 
bat on Earth. Nay, the Word Incarnate was 
more properly an Inhabitant of the Earth thaa 
the Spirit, and yet is not reckoned among the 
WitnefTes on Earth. Is it likely the Spirit 
fhould be made twice a Witnefs in the matter, 
and fo give two Teftimonies for one of the Father 
and Word f 

But lince the Doftor's Inquiry was only after 
external Evidence from Authorities and Tefti- 
mony, it ihall be my prefent bufinefs to examine 
them. 

And here it muft be own'd, that Dr. Mid, has 
done Juftice j fo that very little more can be faid 
in the cafe. 'Tis a Subjeffc which had been long 
and often examin'd, with Nicenefs, from the 
beginning of the Reformation, and very much 
illuftrated by the great Sagacity of the late Learn- 
ed and Laborious Gritick, Father Simon^ in his 
Critical Hifiory of the J^ew Teftament^ Chap. i8.' 
Dr. Mill\ bufinefs was, not fo much to fearch 
for Evidences, as to colled, with no fmall pains, 
what had been oiFer'd ^ and to prefent it in one 
view, and in good order. 

Thefe Evidences are taken, (i.) Fromantient 
t7r^^i& Manufcript Copies. (2.) The antient K^r- 
fans. (3.) The Writings of the antieat Chriftiaa 
Fathers, And indeed whither fhould we go to leara 
what was in the Apoftles Writings, but to the 
oldeft Copies of thofe Writings (which are loft or 
confum'd themfelves) and the oldeft Verfions made 
from them, and to the old Chrillian Writers 
who have tranfcrib'd very much of them into 
their own Books ? 

A 3 (lO 



144' 



6 Anlncjulry into the 

(i .) Let us hear how many antient Manufcript 
Gretk Copies are without this Text. The Doc- 
tor tells us, in his Notes on the Words, That 
'cis certain all thefe Words, in Heaven^ the fa- 
ther^ Wordy and Holy Spirit ; and thefe Three are 
One : and there are Three that hear witnefs in Earth : 
are wanting in molt Copies. Then he enume- 
rates them particularly, in his Dijfertation vpon 
this SubjeB ^ beginning with our famous Alexan- 
f roleg. ^^/^„ Copy, which elfewhere he calls Ingens The- 
^' ''^^^ faurus Orient alisy and the moft precious Trea/tke the 
Chriftian World ever faw for thefe twelve hundred 
Tearsy and by far the moft antient Copy in the World^ 
tphich moft exaEily expreffes the Original 

Kexc comes the famous Vatican Copy, which 
he extols much after the fame manner, as of very 
r. loS. great Credit, and above twelve hundred Years 
old ^ by which, according to Pope Leo\ Order, 
the Complutenfan Edition was to be made. 'Tis 
enough to fhake the Credit of this Text with 
all impartial Men, that 'tis wanting in thefe 
twoj the moft valuable and antient Copies we 
know of in the World. Yet befides this, the 
Doftor gives a long Roll of the other very 
valuable Manufcript Greek Copies, in the molt 
famous Libraries of the Learned, and of our two 
Univerfities, and of the French King (where Fa- 
ther Simon made a diligent Search, and fays, he 
found not one that had thefe Words, of all the 
feven which he view'd, nor of the five Manu- 
fcripts of Mr. Colbert^ tho fome of thefe be of 
Crit. Hift. later date) alfo two at Baftly one at Venicey and 
'h, i8. many more. All thefe want this Text, tho in 
fome of the later Manufcripts there are in the 
Margin fliort Notes, by way of Glofs or Com- 
ment, over againfl: the Spi^ity the Water^ and the 
Bloody applying thefe to the Fathery Wordy and 

Sfirit^ according to an antient myftical Interpre- 
tation, 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7^ ; 

tation, of which hereafter. And from the Ma r^ 
gin, Father Simon judges thefe Words did after- 
wards Hide into the Text, which are in our fe- 
vemh Verfe, Which is a very natural and eafy 
Account, and the only way by which Dr. Mill 
himfelf accounts for fo many other Interpolations, 
in his Notes, and his Prolegomena, 

And whereas Dr. Mill once thought Robert 
Stephens had fouiid the Words in eight Manufcripts 
(becaufe of fifteen Copies which he had, he men- 
tions but feven as wanting this Verfe^ whence 
the Dodor dipt into the common Miftake, and 
took it for granted that the other eight had it) 
he found upon Examination that thofe eight Co- 
pies of Stephens had not St. Johns Epiftle in 
them: fo that all which had the Epiflle^ want- Proleg: 
td^this rerfe. /• i^7' 

To thefe of Dr. Mill^ the Learned Dr. Kujler 
adds one Authority more, from the Cod(x Seide^ 
lianus^ brought out of Greece^ and about 700 
Years old *. So that I think I may fay, in one 
word, all the Greek Manufcripts, which are found, 
do agree in rejecting the Text under Conlldera- 
tion. 

(2.) He confiders the antient Verfons of the 
New Teftament. Thefe were made for the Ufe 
of fuch People, as in early Times were converted 
to the Chriftian Religion, but did not underhand 
the Greek Language, in which the New Tefta- 
ment was written \ for their Benefit it was tranf- 
lated into their own Language. The moft an* 
tient of thefe Verfions were the Syriack^ Coptick^ 
Ethiopicky ArAhlck^ Latin \ all which, with the 
Rujfian^ have not the Text : fo that when thefe 



* In his Edition oj Dr, lAiWs Tcft. Rotterdam 17 19. which 
is what I make nfe of, 

A 4 Vcrfions 



Z An Inquiry into the 

Verfions were made, there was no fuch Paflagc 
in the Grech Copies or Original, whence they 
were made. Of the Latin Verfion the Doftor 
fays "^, T/V certAln this Verfe was wanting in all 
the mofi antient Latin Copies^ except fame in Africa, 
in TcrtuUian'j and Cyprian'i time^ &c. Which 
Exception is a mere Suppofition grounded on his 
Miftake(asl fhall Ihew) t\i2itTertullian^ and efpe- 
cialjy Cyprian^ had cited thefe Words in their 
Books. 

P. 141. The antient /m//V^ Verfion, he fays, was made 
near to the j^poflles tlme^ from the hefi Copies, Of 

^- 152. the Coptich'i that it was from one of the heft and 

P. 128. earlteft. Of the Syriack^ that the Learned agree 
it was made in the very next Age to the Apojiles, 
He tells us moreover, that even the Latin Manu- 
fcripts at Baftl^ Zurich^ Strasbourgh C800 or 900 
Years old) and two others. Duo Donatianici^ 
want thefe Words: That the Words however 
are inferred in the bottom of the Page in one^ 
by another Hand ^ and in the Margin, by the 
fame Hand, in another* 

Father Simon obferves, that in thefe later Co- 
pies of St. Jerom^% Bible, where thefe marginal 
Notes are found, the Order of the Words, and 
t\[t three Witnejfes are various and diverfe^ which 
he takes to be a good Proof that they were not 
in the firfi Copies : who adds alfo one very old 

Crlt.Hift. French Verfion, of a thoufand Years, which has 

'^- not the Words. 

I need but mention the firft Editions of the 
>3ew Teftament, correded by the Manufcripc 
Copies, about the beginning of the Reformation-, 
viT^' by Erafmtis^ Aldus ^ CoUnAtu^ printed in di- 



* Certum eft hunc Verficulum abfuifle c vctuftiflimis Code 
Latinis omnibus, prsctcr Africanos quofdam, 6cct /, 140, 

vers 



[Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. < 

vers places, which he owns had not this Verfe ; 
nor the Verfions of Luther ^ becaufe thefe are of 
no Authority beyond the Manafcript Copies by 
which they might be directed : which, it appears, 
did then want this Ferfe^ otherwife they durfb 
not have left it out, ia. prejudice to a receiv'd 
Opinion of the Church, and in contradidion to 
the vulgar f^erfons at that time. 

(^.) He examines the Writings of the primi- 
tive Chriftians. or Fathers: forafmuch as thefe 
very frequently cite the Sacred Writings on all 
occalions, and had fuch frequent and great Occa- 
flons to fpeak of the Trinity^ and of the Holy Spi- 
rit J it may well be concluded, fuch a Text^ of 
lingular Importance, and fo exceeding pertinent 
to their Defign, and where there is no other Text^ 
to fupply the want of it, fully or direftly in the 
whole New Teftament, could not be forgottea 
by all of them, and at all times, if it had been 
known by them. And here, 

i/, He makes inquiry among the Greek Fa- 
thers, to fee if he can hear of this Text among 
them, who were molt likely to have feen the 
authentick Originals of the Apoflles, and needed 
not a Veriion into another Language. Of thefe he 
gives this melancholy Account ^ Neminem unum, 
&C. That not one Greek Writer from the beginning 
of Chrifiianityto St, Jerom'j time f about 400 
Years) has ever cited this Verfe. And adds, "^Tis Di'fTert. 
certain it has been wanting in the Greek Copies veryP' "J^Sa 
near from the ^pofile^s writing this Epiftle. And '^^^ 
therefore wonders at the Author of the Preface 
to the Canonical Epifilesj in the Latin Bibles, which 
pafles under the name of St. Jerom^ for faying 
this Verfe wa5 in all the Greek Copies : whereas, 
fays the Doftor '^, not one of the Antients had ever 

* Pe quo nemo Veterum qiiidquana inaudiverat. 

hfard 



lo An Inquiry into the 

heard a word of it. For which, and other Reafons^j 
he juftly concludes, as do other Criticks^ that it 
is not Sujeroms. 

Not content with there(7f«ffr4//, he runs over 
the particular moft eminent Greek Fathers, and 
thofe who were moft likely to have produc'd this 
Textj if they had known of it^ who yet never 
mention it. 

r. Not Iremus^ 1. 3, c. i8» who to prove the 
Deity of Chrift, cites this firft Efiftte of John 
('more than once) nay, he cites this fifth Chapter^ 
and yet fays nothing of this Ferfe which had been 
fo appofite to his Defign. 

2. Not Clemens Alexandrinus, 

3. Not Vionyfus Alex, or the Epiflhy under 
his Name, to Paul of Samofata, almoft wholly 
about the Trinity, and the Deity of Chrift ; in 
which the eighth Verfe is cited, and the three 
other Witnefles, the Spirit^ the Water^ and the 
Bloody but not the Words in difpute. 

4. Not Athanafius himfelf, who had his Wits 
about him, and as much at work in thefe Mat- 
ters as any Man *, in vi\\o^Q genuine Works (more 
to be regarded furely than the fpuriom Books 
falQy attributed to him for the other fide) even 
thofe in which he labours to prove the Trinity, 
and Deity of Chrift and the Holy Spirit, by all 
the Texts he could think proper, we find no 
mention of this great Text, as he muft have 
deem'd it. So that the Doftor again confefTes, 
he knows not of one Greek Father, before the 
time of the TV/c^w^ Council, who ever cited it, 

5. Not the Fathers of the Council o^ Sardica 
Thcodor. Jn their Synodical Epiftlej in which, for proof 
i. 2. c. 8. qj: 3 Xrinity of Perfons in one ElTence, they al- 

Icdge John \o. 30. brft not thefe Words, The Fa^ 
ther-f the iVord^ and the Spirit *, and thefe Tijree are 
One: which had been much more fit to their 

pur- 



'Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 11 

purpofe. They needed not twice have cited, 
My Father and J are One^ which yet did ^hot in- 
clude the Sfrit at all : once urging this Paflage, 
fhefe Three are One^ had been better for their 
purpofe than a hundred Repetitions of that other 
Text. 

Certainly all thofe Fathers, who came from 
To many feveral Quarters out of Afia^ Africa^ 
and Eurofe^ as the Preamble of the Epiftle (hews, 
could not be ignorant of this Text which they fo 
much wanted, if there had been any [knowledge 
of it in any part of the Chriftian World. 

6. ISIot Epiphanifu, who among the many 
Texts, alledg'd againft the Brians and Pfteuma- 
tomachi^ quite omits this. 

7. Not Bafil^ in his Book of the Holy Chofl^ 
whom he had a mind to joinwith the Father and 
Son in the Doxology, but was kept in awe by fuch 
as watched his Words, 

8. Not Alexander^ Bifhop of Alexandria^ a- 
mong the many Texts for the Unity of the Fa- 
ther and Son, in his Epiftle, Theodor. 1. i. c. 4. 

9. Not Nyjfen^ in his thirteen Books againft 
EmomiH4y of the Trinity and Deity of the Holy 
Spirit. 

10. Not NaTLianz^en^ in his Oration againft the 
AriarjSy or in his fifth Oration de Theologia ^ 
where, to prove the Spirit to be God, he al- 
ledges the next Words, but not thefe. 

11. Not Didymusy in his Book of the Holy 
Spirit. 

12. Not Chryfofiom^ on the fame Subjeft. 

13. Not Cyrill of Alexandria^ tho he cites the 
Verfes before and after^ to prove the Deity of the 
Spirit j Thefauri Afert, 34. 

14. Not the Author of the Exfofitlon of the Faith^ 
^niong Juflin Martyr^ Works ^ who endeavours 
;o prove the Father^ Son^ and Sfirh to be of one 

ElTenc^, 



I z An Inquiry into the 

EflTence, from their being join'd together in Mat. 
28. rp. but not ixoVkithisText^ more dire«!^ly for 
his purpofe. 

I 5. Not Cicfarivs. 

1 6. Not Proclusj tho both of 'em upon a Sub- 
ject that gave occafion. 

17. Not the Nicetie Fathers themfelves, ac- 
cording to Gelafivs : for Leontius Bifliop of Caf- 
fadocia-dVi^v^Qxxng^ in their name, the Arguments 
of a certain Philofopher who oppos'd the Deity 
of the Holy Spirit, among other Texts infifted oa 
the Words immediately preceding, viz.. It is the 
Spirit that witnejfethy becaufe the Sfirit is Truth ', 
but omits this Verfe. 

Here let me add what Du Pin obferves, That 
as no Greek Father, for five hundred Tearsy 
quoted this Paflage, fo two of them, viz.* Didy- 
mus of Alexandria in the 4th Century, and O^. 
cumenius in the nth, have written Commen- 
taries upon this Epiftle of St. John^ and yet men- 
tion not this Verfe: whichj fays he, proves that 
either they did not know ity or not believe it to he 
genuine *. 

Thus far then the way is clear thro the an- 
tient Greek Writers for fo many hundred Years ^ 
even to an Age or two after Athanalius, as the 
Doftor confeflcs f. 

2^/y. For the Latin Fathers ^ the Doftor grants, 
that neither the Author of the Treatife of the 
Baftifm of Hereticby among Cyprian^s Works (tho 
he mentions the Verfes both before and after) 



* Hift. of the Canon, Fo/. 2. p, 78. 

\ C^inimo nullum omnino Codicem Grxcis Ecclefils in ufii 
fuifTe credo, nifi qui ad mutilatos quos dicimus, defcriptus fir, 
pene ab ipGus Archctypi Scriptura ufque ad Seculum unum vel al- 
terum poli Achanaiium. 

nor 



Authority of i John 5. 7. 1 j 

nor Novatian^ nor Hilar ius^ nOi C-iiiritanus^ nor 
Fhabadius^ have ever cited thefe Words. Nor 
jimbrofe^v^^o alfo has the r^r/^j on both fides ^ nor 
Jeroniy nor Fauftwus^ nor Au ft in ^ who yet would 
have the Father^ Sonj and Spirit^ to be myllically 
fignify'd by the Spirit^ the IVater^ and the Bloody 
in the next Verfe. Nor Eucheriusy who has the 
fame Notes on the next Verfe : nor Leo Magnvs^ 
nor Fttcvndus Hermienfisy who alfo cites the eighth 
Verfe. Nor Juniiius^ nor Cerealis^ nor Bede^ (in 
the eighth Century) who, in his Comment on 
$his Epiftle^ expounds the three other Witneffes^ but 
not this feventh Ferfe, 

Tho foon after his time, the Doftor fays, the 
Weftern Bibles began to have it common: which I 
(hall not much difpute. 

The Reader mult note^ that all thefe antient 
Writers are here produc'd, not merely for noc 
mentioning thefe xvords (for then a much greater 
number might have been brought^ but becaufe 
tljey treated profefledly of fuch Subjeds as re- 
quir'd the Afliltance of this Text^ and many of 
'em of the Context^ and next Verfes. And there- 
fore tho others might omit it, as not having 
occafion to alledge it, yet all thefe cou'd never 
have omitted it on any other reafon but this. 
That they had it not in t\\Q\x Bibles (as the Doc- 
tor jufkly argues) for above 700 Tears. 

Now methinks here is a pretty large flock of 
Evidence, and as much as one can well require 
for a Negative, to (hew that this Verfe was not 
originally any part of the New Teftament : and 
one had need have very direct and peremptory 
Teftimonies to the contrary, to make him fa 
much as to hefitate in the matter. There mufl: 
be great Weight, to caufe an Equilibrium^ and 
much greater to turn the Scales, and make him 

determine 



14 ' ^n Inquiry Into the 

determine for what fee ms hitherto irrecoverabljf 
loft. But 1 forbear, till 1 have confidcr'd, 

II. What Dr. Mill has ofFerM for fuferiout 
Evidence on the other fide, to prove this Ferfc 
genuine, againft all that has been faid. 

And now he has a hard Task indeed, to undo 
all that had hitherto been done, and to prove 
this Text authentick, againft all thefe Manufcript 
Greek Copies^ all the old Verftons^ all the before- 
mention'd primitive Writ ersy .both Greeks and 
Latinsy down to the eighth'Century, who, all 
that while, knew nothing of it. 

No doubt it would be a grateful Service to the 
Church, of which he was a worthy Member, if 
he could juftify her putting it into her Bible as 
current Scripture, (tho that has been but of late) 
and cou'd fupport the Credit of a Text^ on which 
principally fome important Branches of her Creed 
and fuhlick Offices feem to be founded. Here is a 
great deal to excite one to try what can be faid, 
by a kind Friend, in the Cafe; who wasunwil-^ 
ling to leave the Matter fairly ftated on both 
fides, without giving it the Weight of his own 
Judgment on one fide ^ which no doubt had other- 
wife been thought to be for the contrary. 'Tis 
well known how many are apt to regard a 
Learned Author*^ own Opinion, more than to 
examine his Premifes, or weigh his Arguments, 
But what has he to fay in this Caufe? 

In ihtfirfi place 1 muft fhew what j^rgvmenti 
he refufes to make ufe of : efpecially two^ which 
have been often urg'd by others, thro Miftake, 
or Want of Judgment, or popular Prejudice, 
As, 

I. That the Arians have razeed this Text out 
of the Bible, becaufe it thwarted their Opinion^ 
Ihis pafl'es for current among the People, and 

is 



^Authority 0/ i John 5. 7.'' 15 

IS taught 'em by their Expofitors, even by Dr. 
Hammond^ and many other lefs judicious Com- 
mentators. But the Learned T>x. Millxt]t^s the 
Sufpicion of this with Indignation and Scorn: 
for ■* hovD Jhoud the Arians, fays he, put out the 
words J which were out already <, i 50 Tears before 
Arius was horn ? And he fays, that Ambrofty 
who^ alone of the Antiems^ obje^ed this^ in relatuirt. 
to another Text^ John ^^6. (not the Text in dif- 
pute) was under a Adiflake : as he fhews in his 
Kotes on that place. 

Nor will the Dodor fufped any of the.<7«<7- 
fi^ick Hereticksin former times ; whom their Op- 
pofers accufed indeed of making new Gofpels, 
but not of corrupting the old : only Marcion was 
charg'd with interpolating the Gofpels and 'StU 
Paul's Epiftles, but not the Catholick EpifiUs. 
Kor cou'd they corrupt the Copies in other Chrif^ 
tians Hands, nor yet thofe in their own^ without 
being foon difcover'd. Thus the Dodor clears 
the Hereticks, as being without juft caufe fuf- 
peded in this matter: / dont think any Heretick 
corrupted the Text in any partj much lefs in this fa^ 
mous Teftimony of St. John 'f-. 

2. He utterly rejedts the Authority of the Pre- 
face to the Canonical Epiftles, under the name 
of St. Jerowy in the firit printed Latin Bibles 9 
which pretends that all the Greek Copies had 
this Ferfe^ and that the Latin Tranflators had 
done unfaithfully in omitting it. And thoevea. 
the Latin Bibles which had this Preface, wanted 
this Verfe, after the Complaint made, (which 
Ihew'd that the Preface and the Verfion were 



* Quid enim illis cum hac Perlcope, fublata ^ comexm 
Craeco i«50 annis afttcquam Arius nafcercnir ? 

\ Non puto quenquam hireticorum S. Textum in aliquo, 
aedum in hoc nobiJiflimo Johannis tcftimonio, dcpravafle. 

not 



1 6 An Inquiry into the 

not by the fame Author) yet this gave great 
trouble to Erafmus (and others) how to recon- 
cile this to the plain Evidences of the contrary: 
He was well aflured the Ferfe had not been in 
the Greek Copies, and therefore charges Jerom 
with Falfhood and Forgery. And the Learned 
Bifhop Fell was at the needlefs pains of vindi- 
cating St. Jeroniy and juftifying his Preface, in 
his Notts on Cyprian ^ when after all, our Learned 
Dodor, who acknowledges that himfelf once had 
a great regard for this Preface^ before he had 
cxamin'd into it, is fully convinc'd (with F. 
Simon and Du Tin) that 'tis not St. Jeronis^ nor 
is it found in the moft antient Manufcript Copies 
of his Verlion; nor with his Name, in fome 
Crit. Hlft. other Copies where it is, as F. Simon tells us : 
^- 1^-. but is the Work of fome filly Rha^fodift after 
JbTbr* ^^^^'s ^^"^^1 35 theDoftor fays, and then join'd 
(ixli. ^ ^^ ^^^ Bthle^ which contradifted the Preface. 

So that the Learned will no more be troubled 
with this pretended Authority of St. Jerom'^s 
Preface, nor get any aid from it^ towards the 
Support of the Credit of this Verfe we are in- 
quiring after. 

I am next to confider what Authorities the 
'Do^ovdoes infill on, on behalf of this Text. 

As for Teftimonies from the antient Greel 

Writers, he had left himfelf very little to fay 

from them, having confefs'd there is not one 

of thefe, before the Council of Nice-t w]io tak|ss 

any notice of this Text. And therefore, tho he 

puts down Serif tores Graci for one of his Topicks^ 

he is hard put to it to find any, and is content 

to mention only one oblique Teftimony, which he 

. ^^^^^ wou'd have pafs for probable^ from a fpurious 

Difputatio- ^ovk falfly afcrib'd to, but long after jithana- 

munCon-fus f . Aud he is fufpeded to be a Latif$ Author 

cil.Niccn. .|* too 7 



Authority of i John ^./. \T 

too ^ who only fays, ^lutlvvm (pao-ku h Tf«^ to %v hWj 
]o\\n fays thefe Three are One. Which tq sV, with 
the Article^ are neither exadly the words of the 
feventh nor eighth Ferfe : and F. Simon judges 
they refer to the latter^ which was ufually ap- 
ply'd to the Father^ Son^ and S^iirit at that time; 
as Dr. Mill owns it was in St. Aufii?i\, Hence 
he leaps at once down to the Council of Lateran 
undi^r Innocent the Third, in the 13th Century; 
and to Calecas^ in the 14th, who was a Greek^ 
and turn'd to the Latins, All which is to no 
purpofe at all, but to increafe the number of 
Teftimonies. 

The Greek Manufcripts be pretends (which 
will be found only fuppos'd) are, i. A Manu- 
fcript in Britain of which Erafmus fpeaks, 
and by which he was moved fagainit his own 
free Judgment) to put thefe Words into his laffc 
Editions of the New Teftament, againft the E- 
vidence of all the other Manufcript Greek Copies. 
2. Some Manufcripts which the Dodor fuppofes 
Robert Stephens to mention, as having moft of 
the words ; all, except \v t^ »6«»'f> *« Heaven. 3, 
The antient Vatican Copies, which the Editors 
of the Com^lutenfan Bible fay in general they 
were direded by, and the Dodor hopes they 
were fo in this particular, which they have taken 
into this Edition. 

I think it will appear that all thefe are but 
Suppofitions of fuch Copies as never were feen, 
nor produc'd by any others to this day. To all in hU Ke\ 
which, Dr. Clarke has given a learned and f\x\\Ph^lo m/. 
Anfwer, except to 5ffp^f«j's Manufcripts, where ^*^'°"* 
he feems to have miftaken the Objedion ; ot^' ^^^' 
which hereafter. 

As to the Ferftons^ Dr. Mill had none very 
antient to bring. The Vulgar^ of which fome 
Manufcripts have it, and others want it, as is 

B noted 



1 8 An Inquiry into the 

noted by the Louvain Editors \ the Italicl printed 
at Fenics in 1532. (while the old Italick, and 
St. Jerom's Correction of it was otherwife) are 
not worth regarding in this matter : nor the 
A^ojholos^ or Colledion of Sedions out of the 
Prwted at jpoflles Books, with fome Remarks. Only, 
Venice, whereas the Dodor mentions the ArmenianVzx^ 
^^^^' fion for having this rerfe, as he was inform'd *, 
Appead. the very Learned Sandius teftifies the contrary, 
Paradox, having himfelf feen it, with the ArmenUn Bi- 
h V^*^ (hop, at Amft^erdam^ 

Laftly, The Dodor produces his Latin Fa- 
thers, which are indeed his main Strength and 
Confidence* 

1. TertulUan^ contra Prax. c. 25. his Words 
are : The Taraclete jhall take of mine-, fays Chrifiy 
as he did of the Father s» Thus the Connexion of 
the Father in the Son^ and of the Son in the Para* 
dete^ makes the Three clofely united^ which Three 
are One^ hut not one Perfon ^ as ^tis faid^ I and my 
Father are One ^. Which the Dodor thinks, 
with Biihop Bull and Dr. Hammond^ are an Al- 
lufion to our Text in difpute. 

2. Cyprian^ de Vnitate Ecclefu^ his words are : 
'77x written of the Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit^ 
thefe Three are One -]' \ or Three are One^ as fome 
Copies have it : and, in his Epiftle ad Jubaia- 
num^ Tres Vnumfunt^ Three are One \ without any 
Reference to the Scripture exprefs'd. And near 
300 Years after, comes Fulgentius^ a Bifhop of 



* De mco fumet, inquit, ficut ipfe de Patris, ita connexus 
Patris in Filio, & Filii in Paradeto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alte- 
nim ex altero. Qui tres unum funt, non unus ; quomodo dic- 
tum eft, ego & Pater unutn fumus. 

\ De Patre, Filio, gc Spiritu San^O faiptum eft j & hi Tres 
Uftum funt. 

AfricA^ 



Authority of i John j. /• 19 

Africa^ and fays that Cyprian in the former 
words had refpe(ft to St. Johns Teftimony. 

3. Fi^or Fiten/ts, who tells us of a Gonfef- 
fion of Faith, prefented by Eugenius Bifliop of 
Carthage^ and other Bifhops, to Hunnerlck King 
of the Vandals '^ in which this Text is cited as 
from St. Joh7j^ in the manner we now have it, 
in the Year 484. 

4. Figilivs TapfenfiSy Fulgent ius^ and the Au- 
thor of the Ex flic at ion of the Faith ^ ad Cyril" 
turn. 

And thus you have the Whole of what mult 
over-ballance all the Evidence on the other fide : 
which, whether it will do or not, is to be con- 
lidcr'd under my next Head» Therefore, 

III. I (hall fhew the Infufficiency of thefe Ar- 
guments brought to fupport the Authority 
of this Text^ againft thofe produc'd to over- 
throw it. 

I fuppofe no Man of Reafon will defire me to 
give any anfwer to what the Dodlof cou'd lay 
no ftrefs upon: I mean, fuch modern Teftimo- 
nies as Calecas and the Council of Lateran, o^r 
late Editions and Ferfions^ or the vulgar L^tin 
Bibles fince Bedeh time. Therefore I fliall fay 
no more to them \ nor indeed to FigiUus Tap- 
fenfis and Fi^or Fitenfis^ nor to any Writer lb 
long after the Heats between the Arians and. 
Athanajians^ and when the Invafions of the bar- 
barous Nations had thrown all into Confafion 
and Ignorance. Such modern Teftimonies will 
only tell me, that thefe Words did at laft appear. 
All this 1 know well enough •, for I fee they are 
brought into the Latin Verfions, and fince that 
into our printed Greek Copies \ and into onr Eng' 
lijh Tranllations, firft in little Characters for dif- 
tinftion, and next with as good a face as the 
B 2 reft 



20 An Inquiry into the 

reft of tbe T^xt, And if this began to be done 
id the fifths or fiXth, or feventh Century, what 
is that, any more than if it was in the fifteenth 
or fixteenth ? But if the Words were not in St. 
Johns Eplftle for fo many hundred Years, nor 
known to the Ghriftian Church as fuch, I fhall 
conclude that no Man can give a good reafon for 
admitting ^em fiace. 

And a thoufand fmooth Suppofitions (which 
are, in like cafes, found to be falfe by daily Ex- 
perience) that fuch and fuch a Writer wou'd not, 
ia later times, have ufed the Words^ or put 'em 
into the Bible, if he had not good Evidence they 
were in the Original •, are of no force againit 
all the Greek Manufcripts and Fathers, which 
plainly fhew they certainly were not there. If 
upon the whole matter there can be found not 
one Greek Manufcript, or one Greek Writer, who 
mentions it for a thoufand Years ^ nor one Latin 
Writer to the fifth Century (if St. Cyprian be 
not the Man, which (hall be inquired into) 
what lignifies all the reft ? Men may be fond 
of a fpurious IflTue, but that will not legiti- 
mate it. 

Only with relation to Vi^or ritenfis^ becaufe 
the Dodor lays fuch a ;ftrefs upon it, as if the 
urging thefe Words^ in a ConfefFion of Faith, fo 
pubiickly prefented to Humericus^ in midft of 
the Arians^ in the Year 484. was a good proof 
that they had been well known and receiv'd ; 
at leaft, ante unum Seculum aut alterum^ an Agt 
er two before'^ and fo will carry the Evidence 
much higher than the Year 484. Therefore I 
fhall take fome notice of this, and fhew that 
in fad it was not thus, as he plaufibly ima- 
gines. 

What the Credit of ViB^or'^ Hiftory, as we 
have it, is, I cannot well tell. I know it has found 

little 



Authority 0/ i John 5, 7. ii 

little with many, in relation of ftrange Miracks, 
not unlike thofe of Monhjh Legends, viz. of 
many who cou'd fpeak freely and articulately, 
when their Tongues had been cat ont hy the 
Roots ^ and fending his Reader to Confiantmofie^ 
for an Iriftance to prove it : with other Miracles* 
But let that be as it will, 1 take it for granted, 
that he fays true, in the Matter before as ; that 
in the Creed prefented to Humericus^ this Ttxi 
was cited as from St. John, But that it bad not 
been commonly and long received, aad weO 
known as fuch, 1 think is plain by what the 
Dodtor cou'd not deny, viz.. That St. Aug^fiint^ 
Eucheriusy and Cerealis^ of the fame Country, 
and in the fame Age, knew not of this Texr^ < 
Eucherius lived within thirty Years of the time 
when this Creed was prefented ^ and the Do£|or 
tells us, he fays it was common In his time to 
interpret the Sprit^ the Water and the Bioed^ of 
the Father^ Word^ and Sfirit ^ as did Aufitn. Now? 
if this Text had been receiv'd then^ what place 
had there been for fuch a myftical Interpretation 
of the three Witneffes on Earth ? Kay, Cerfdis 
was one of the African Blfhops at the fame time, 
probably ^ for he flourilh'd in the time of the 
Perfecution under Hunnericus'^ and who drew up 
a Confe iion of Faith alfo, at the Demand of 
the Arian BiOiop Maximinian ; and had the fame 
reafon to have made ufe of this Texty as Etdge* 
nius^ if it had been current, as the Dodor in- 
fmuates Where then is the SeoAum -unnm ant 
alterum^ the Age or two befors^ in which ihis Text 
had been admitted ? I rather think it mnft only 
have been fome private Compofure, tho it might 
be in the name of the other Bilhops, who were 
now fcatter'd and baniih'd. it is figned only 
a Gafis Medianis Epi/copis Numidi^ ^ Bonifacio Fi- BibKoth, 
rmanenfiy & Bonifacio Gatienenfi^ Efifcofh Fiz.ace- Pa:ram. 

B 3 nis. 



2 z jfn lnc[my into the 

tiis. So that it carries the Evidence no higher, 
than to that time^ and that at the latter end of 
the fifth Century Ibme pretended this for Text^ 
which had been only an Interpret atio^i. 

There remain then only two things of weight 
to be clear'd : 

Firftj The pretended Creels Manufcripts. 

Secondly^ The Teftimonies of Tertuliianj but 
chiefly of St. Cyprian. 

FirJ^^ His Greek Manufcripts pretended : Thefe 
are of three forts. 

(i.) The BritifJi Copy which Erafmvs f^Q^ks 
of ^ who not finding ont Greek Copy which had 
this Paflage, wou'd not put it into his two firft 
Editions of the New Teftament : but upon in- 
formation of a Copy in England which had it, 
did, againft the Faith of all his Copies, after- 
wards infert it ^ "^ rather, as he confefles, to 
avoid the Reproach of others, than that he 
judg'd it to be of fufficient Authority. For 
which V.Simon thus rebukes him : With what war^ 
Crit. Hift. y^^f cou*d he correB his Edition by one fingle Copy ; 
• • which^ as himfclf believ*d^ had fvfferd fome Alte^ 
ration f 

And it appears he had reafon to fufpeft it : 
for who ever faw this Briti^ Copy fince, or that 
wou'd produce it ? Dr. Mill does not tell us 
where it was, or that ever he heard more of it. 
Such rare Difcoveries, fo ufeful and grateful to 
the Publick, are not wont to be loft again, in 
fo critical an Age. What ! cannot all the 
Learned Men of our two Univerfities, nor our 

* Ex hoc Codice Anglfcano repofulmus, quod in noftris ^X" 
cebatui- deefTe, nc ilt caufa calumniandi, tametfi fufpicor Co- 
dfcem ilium ad noftros efle corrcftum, 

nume^ 



Authority of iJohn 5,7. 25 

numerous Clergy, give us fome account of it ? 
Surely either there was no fuch Copy, or it is 
not for the purpofe : elfe it had probably, long 
before this time, been produced. I am apt to 
think it did the belt fervice it ever cou'd do, 
in the Caufe, in thus impofing upon the Great 
Erafmus. Strange ! that a Brhijh Copy is only to 
be mention'd by one beyond the Seas, while all 
Britain^ and fuch an inquifitive Britijh Critick as 
Dr. Mill^ can know nothing more of it. Fo- 
reigners will exped to hear of it from us, ra- 
ther than we from them. F. Simon fays Erafmus 
faw it : but where does Erafmus fay fo ? He only 
fays (in his Annotations) There is found one Grtok 
Jllanufcript among the Englifh, which hath it ^» He 
needed not then have faid, Sufpicor^ &c, he cou'd, 
I think, have made a clearer Judgment of it, if 
he had feen it. And if he was abus'd by Mifin» 
formation or otherwife, 'tis hard firft to deceive 
him, and then to make his Miftake an Authority 
in the cafe. 

(2.) The Do(^or depends on the Manufcript 
Copies by which he fuppofes the Cemplutenfian 
Edition was regulated ; becaufe thefe words are 
there, and the Editors fay in general, they fol- 
low'd the belt and moft antient Manufcripts of 
the Vatican, 

But as they don't fay, that they were direc- 
ted by thofe Manufcripts in putting in this Ferfij 
fo it appears they were not^ becaufe, by the 
Dodor's own Confeffion, the moft antient and mafi 
correB Copy of the Vatican^ which is fo juftly 
extol'd by him, (and comes at leaft very near to 
the famous Alexandrian Manufcripts in the Royal 



* Repertus eft apud Anglos Grsecus Codex unus, in quo ha- 
bctm*. 



B 4 Library 



14 -^'^ Inquiry into the 

Library here) wants thefe Words which thofe 
Editors have put in : And how then did they 
follow it fo clofeiy as is pretended ? Nay, . this 
excellent Manufcri^t was that which Pope Leo 
recommended to them, as the Ground- work and 
Standard of their Edition, to which they were 
to keep, and to note the Variations of other 
Copies in their Margin, and which for the moffc 
part they did ^ and yet in this they forfook it. 
Prolc|. p^^^ >|.|g jjQ wonder, if they did fo by the refi 
^'^° * of the Vatican Manufcripts^ as appears. 

For Cariofhilus afterwards, having by Order 
of Pope Vrban VIU. examin'd th^k Vatican Ma- 
rjufcripts, tells us plainly, that all of 'em which 
have this Epiftle of St. John^ want this feventh 
Verfe : tho, out of refped to St. Cyprian^ he was 
for keeping it in -(-. Of which, Dr. Clarke has 
given an account, in the place already refer'd to j 
together with an account of fixteen Manufcripts 
{eight of 'em in the King of Spain*s Library) 
collated by the Spanish Marquifs, Peter Faxard 
(as F. Simon names him) and publifh'd by La 
Cerda^ in his Adverfaria Sacra^ c. 19. from all 
which Manufcripts nothing is alledg'd to iuftify 
their vulvar Ferjion^ in keeping this Ferfe. How 
then cou d Dr. Mill prefume fo ftrongly that the 
Complutenfian Editors kept to their Manufcripts 
Cm. HifV. here ? F. Simon faw the contrary, and fays they 
par,2» c.^. followed the Reading of the Latin Copies here \ 
and to vindicate it, have inferted a Note from 
Aquinas J in the Margin. 

(3.) He pretends ihQ f even Jl^anufcripts of RO' 
bert Stephens, to warrant the Words to be ge- 
nuine. Stephens tells us he made ufe of fifteen 
Manufcripts in his Edition of the New TeJ^amenty 



* Ad finem Catenae in Marcum, 

only 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. if 

only [even of which he has fet down in the 
Margin, as wanting fome, at kafl:, of the Words 
in difpute : hence it was concluded formerly, 
even by Dr. Mill hirafelf, as well as others, 
that the other eight wanted nothing, but had 
the whole, as we have it. To this, the Doctor's 
rcmarhable Words cited from his Prolegomena^ by 
Dr. Clarke, are a compleat Anfwer *, (hewing that 
^ thofe eight Manufcripts did not include this Epifilc 
of St. John^ at all ^ and fo were of no concern 
here. But Dr. i^/// was fenfible of this, in his 
Dijfertation on the Text, where he fays of thefe 
eight Manufcripts, Reliqui has EpiftoUs nan exhi" 
herit. And ;:herefore he urges but the other feven^ 
which are noted as wanting only hT^^i^v^^ in 
Heaven, and authorizing the reit ^ The Father^ 
the Word, and the Spirit^ and thefe three arc 
One, 

But as Br. Mill was too judicious not to fee 
thro this Miftake, in placing a little Mark *, fo 
he fairly owns his Doubt about it, in his Notes 
on the Verfe : // indeed the little Hook he placed 
aright f. For this depends wholly upon placing 
the Semicircle, which marks the Words that are 
wanting in fuch Manufcripts, as are noted in the 
inward Margin. In Stephens^ fair Folio Edition^ 
this Mark or fmall Hook falls after the words 
Iv T&f ^^^y? ', as if thefe only were wanting : 
whereas it fhou'd have been placed after the 
whole Verfe, as F. Simon obferves (or rather, af- 
ther the words in Earth, in the eighth Verfe : 
which, the Dodor owns in his Notes, was the 
cafe of the moft andbefi Copies ^ and 5/wo« inti- 
mates the fame in his Remarks upon the Lou" 



•f* Si quidem Semicirculus fuo loco fit collocatus ; which 
Lucas Brugenfis had Jaid before, 

vain 



26 \/^n Inquiry into the 

lain Latin Bible by Hentenius^ which had th^ 
like Error.) And I wonder the Dodor fhou'd 
fay upon it, Nefcio qua automate^ necjue dicit fe 
iftos libros confuluijfe ; or that he had not con- 
fulted the Copies, when he exprefly faid, he had 
confulted the Manufcrifts of the King's Library : 
and I think it was there Stephens found his ^. 
It appears by Dr. Millh Account in his Prolego^ 
mena^ that four of thefe feven Manufcripts were^ 
in the French King^s Library ^ and fince F. Simon 
Crit. Hift. cou'd find none there, that wanted only the 
fart 2.C.9. words in Heaven^ nor any one elfe pretends to 
find fuch elfewhere, I may fafely conclude 'twas 
a Miftake in placing the Mark in Stephens^ which 
the Dodor was willing to take hold of. And 
the fame Stephens^ in his Latin Edition of the 
Kew Teftament, (as V. Simon tells us, Crit. Hift. 
fart 2. c II. and as I have feen) included the 
whole Paffage within the Mark, bo that I think 
the Cafe is plain, that all Stefhens\ Manufcripts 
wanted this Verfe. 

'Tis probable he put it into his own Edition, 
from the Complutenjian^ and we from his into 
ours '-i (fo one Error begets another, by prefum- 
ing too well of the Care and Faithfulnefs of fuch 
as went before) for the Dodor tells us, Stephens 
govern'd himfelf by the beft Manufcripts : but 
Prolcg. then he fays, He always judged thofe to be befi 
/. ii7» which agreed with the Complutenlian. Elfe it 
would be very ftrange, that all Stephens^sMmu- 
fcripts fhou'd differ from all them of Erafmus 
and Simon^ and others j as they muft, if only 
tvTT^ie^v^ were wanting. 

And whereas the Dodor lays a ftrefs on 
Stephens^s faying he departed not one Letter from 



Regia Bibliotheca fuppeditavlt. Proleg, p* 117, 

the 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 27 

the heft and moft of his Copies 'j* ^ I would ask then^ 
how he came to put in the kv tJ «^«r«, in Hea-^ 
ven^ when every one of his [even Manufcripts 
wanted 'em ? 'Tis plain Criticks are not always 
to be trufted in what they fay of their own 
Fidelity : the Dodor was right, in inferring that 
it ought to have been as he faid, but 'tis plain ia 
fad it was not fo. 

Thus having examined all hi^ Pretences to the 
Greek Manufcripts^ I think it nilly appears there 
is not fo much as one found to authorize this 
Paflage, nor one antient Ferfwn^ made from the 
Greek \ and for others, they are not of value in 
the cafe. Indeed the Dodor has dealt more 
fairly than our common unaccurate Commenta.'- 
tors \ who, without any Examination, talk round- 
ly of many^ the molt antient and the beft Copies, 
which have thefe Words, not knowing what they 
fay: whereas he pretends but to fexv^ and ra- 
ther fuppofes and hopes, from fome Hints in 
others, that they had fuch Copies, than knows 
of any himfelf. 

Let me clofe this Head, with the very perti- 
nent Remark of the moft Learned Phileleutherus, Part u 
again ft the Difcourfe of FrecThinking : The pre- 
fent Text was fir f^ fettled almoft 200 Tears ago^ out 
of fever al ManufcriftSy by Robert Stephens, Printer 
and Bookfeller at Paris j whofe beautiful and gene^ 
rally freaking (it feems, not in all points) accu-^ 
rate Edition^ has been ever fince counted the Stan^ 
dardj and followed by all the reft-. Now this fpeci" 
fick Text in your Do(for^s (Whitby'jJ Notion^ 
feems taken for the Sacred Original in every Word 

\ Ne in una liteu difceiTerlt a meliorum 5c plurium codi* 
cum fuffragfo. " " 

and 



Jn Inquiry into the 

and Syllable ^ and if the Conceit is hut /pre ad and 
propagated^ within a few Tears that Printer^ s Infal^ 
Itbiiity will be as z,ealouJly maintain dy as an Evan* 
gelift's or ApoftWs. 

Dr. Mill, were he now alive j wou*d confefs that 
this Text, fixed by a Printer^ is fometimes by the 
various Readings rendered uncertain^ nay^ is proved 
certainly wrong ^ but that the real Text lies not in 
any fngle Manufcrift or Edition^ but is difperfed 
in them all. 

i now come to the fecond Head of his Argu- 
ments, viz,, from antient Tefiimoniesoi the Latin 
Writers, TertulUan and Cyprian. 

As for Tertuilian^ in the Words already fet 
down, he had only faid, fpeaking of the Father^ 
Sony and Spirit ^ thefe Three are One ^ and ^tis writ- 
teny the Father and I are One. But the former of 
thefe he fays from himfelf^ not as any part of 
Scripture^ as he fays the nexr words are. And in- 
deed he needed not to have cited thefe latter 
Words at all, if the former had been of the fame 
Authority \ for they had been fufficient, whereas 
the latter Words were not to his purpofe for 
proving the Floly Spirit's Unity with the Father 
and Son. Only not having a Text for the Unity 
of all the Threey he was willing to alledge thefe 
Words for the Two as a Step to the other. 

Kor can it be thought, but that in fo volumi- 
nous a Writer we muft have had that Text many 
times over, on feveral proper Occafions, if he 
had known it as fuch. He repeats John lo. 30. 
/ and the Father are one^ very frequently, even 
five times in a few Pages in his Book contra Praxe-^ 
am^ and again contra Hermog. and de Oratione, 
VVhereas this pretended Text^ fo much more for 
his purpofe, he omits: which could hardly have 
been, if he had taken it to be of as good Autho- 

lity 



[Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 29 

rity as the other Text. And therefore Dr. Mili 
had reafon to urge it but foftly, faying. Dr. Bull 
and "Dv* Hammond put ant fe allu/ijfe^ fuppofe that he 
might allude to the Words of St. John : which is but 
a Conjedure, inftead of a Proof. 

So that St. Cyprian is left alone to bear the weight 
of all. And indeed 'tis eafy to fee theDodtor's 
chief Confidence is in his Teftimony, (with a 
little help from TertvlUan^ whom he owns to be 
not fo clear) infomuch that he fays, This is Evi^ 
dence enough of the Words being authentick^ tho none 
of the Greek Writers ever faw them^ and tho they 
never appeared in any Copy to this day. It feems 
then 'tis to no purpofe to withftand this Evidence -, 
or rather it feems, having nothing elfe to trult 
to, the Doftor was refolv'd this mufi and (hall do 
thebufinefs. 

Cyprianh Words are, Of the Father., Son., and '^^ ^^m'- 
Holy Spirit^ it is written^ Thefe Three are One ^ (the"^^^^' 
Other Teftimony, in Epifi. ad Jubaianum^ is but '^ ^ ^^* 
like Tertullianh fuppofed Allufion to the Text, and 
may have the fame Anfwer.) Upon thefe Words 
the Queftion is. Whether Cyprian refers to the 
feventh Ferfe in difpute, or to the eighth^ by a 
myftical Interpretation of the Water^ the Blood., 
and the Spirit^ as fignifying the Father., the Son., 
and the Spirit ? Father Simon is out of doubt for Cm. Hift. 
this latter, and brings aftrong Proof of it from*^- *^- 
the Words of Facundus., who was of the fame 
African Churchy in the fifth Century \ and who not 
only himfelf£o interprets the Words of the eighth 
f^erfe^ but exprefly adds, that St. Cyprian fo'ua- 
derilood them too, in this very place. Says he, 
■^ Of the Father J Son., and Holy Spirit^ he (St. John) 

fays 



* De Patre, Filio, 6c Spiritu Sando, dicit tres funt qui tefti- 
moniura dant in terra, Spiritus, Aqua, §c Sanguis, 6c hi tres 

unum 



2 o Ai Inquiry into the 

fays there are Three that bear wltnefs on Earthy the 
Sprite the Water ^ and the Blood j and thefe Three 
are One : by the Spirit^ fi^^^fj^^^ ^^^ Father^ by the 
Water^ the Holy Ghofij and by the Bloody the Son, 
Which Words of ]o\[x\ the ApoflUy St. Cyprian the 
Martyr^ in his Book of the Trinity^ (Vnity it (hould 
be, as Simon obferves) conceives to be fpoken of the 
Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit. And tho Dr. Mill 
would make light of this Teftimony, 'tis without 
all Reafon, and from mere Necellity: fince this 
will overturn all he had to fay from the Latin 
Fathers, 

What Facmdus fays, is fo far from being im- 
probable, that the Dodor himfelf owns St. Auf- 
tin^ who was of the fame African Churchy did 
make the fame Interpretation afterwards*, and 
after him, Eucherim declares it was a commoa 
Expofition of thofe Words : and then why might 
it not be Cyprian^s ? Does not Facundm exprelly 
fay it ? Does he tell an unlikely Story ? Why is it 
then levi^ momenti ? Truly the Doftor thinks 
none, till St. Auflin^ made this myftical Inter- 
pretation, and therefore not St. Cyprian, But 
why might not Cyprian begin it as well as Auflin? 
Facundus tells us, he did interpret fo, and it does 
not appear that he had any other fuch Words to 
apply to the Trinity, but thefe. Is it not as good 
an Argument againft the Dodor, to fay that Cy- 
prian did not cite thQ feventh Verfe in difpute, be- 
caufe that Verfe never appear'd in any Writer till 
thQ fifth Centvry J as his is, viz.. That Cyprian did not 



unum funt ; in Spiritu fignlficans Patrem, in Aqua Spiritum 
Sandum, in Sanguine vero Filium fignificans. — — — Quod 
Joannis Apoftoli Teftimonium l^eatus Cyprianus in Epiftola five 
libro quern de Tiinitate (de Ijnitate rather) fcripfitj de Patre, 
Filio, & Spiritu SandOj didum intelligit. lacmdm pro Defenfi 
Jrin, Cap, 1. i, c. 2^ 

;: fo 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. ^ i 

fo interpret, becaufe that Interpretation appears 
not till the fifth Century ? Only I can prove 
my Aflertion by a proper pofitive Teftiraony, 
that Cyprian did ufe f^/^ Interpretation ; whereas 
he had none to prove that St. Cyprian met with a 
fpecial Copy of St. Johns EpiftU^ which had that 
Verfe. 

'Tis true indeed, he alledges for the other fide 
FulgentiHs^ Contemporary with Facundta^ laying, 
* St. John teftifies there are three that bear witnefs in 
Heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and Spirit '-, and thefe 
Three are One : which alfo St. Cyprian, in his Epifile of 
the Vnity of the Churchy confejfes \ alledging from the 
ScriptureSy that of the Father ^ Son^ and Holy Spirit^ 
^tis written^ And Three are One. But as Facundus 
is as good an Evidence as he^ and more particular, 
fo even this does not contradid Facundus. For 
Fulgentim and he both fay the fame thing, viz,. 
that Cyprian confejfed St. JohnV Teft-imony of the 
Father^ Son^ and Spirit^ thefe Three are One* Only 
Facundus tells us, that he took this Teftimon/ 
from the eighth Verfe^ and Fulgent ius does not fay 
it was otherwife '•, and therefore there is no reafoa 
to oppofe* himXo Facundus. Cyprian might owa 
the fame thing as is now contain'd in the feventh 
Verfe^ tho he deduc'd it from the eighth : He that 
fuppofedthe Spirit^ the Water^ and thQ Bloody in 
St. Johnj to mean the Father^ the Son^ and the 
Spirit^ as much confejfed this Dodrine, and from 
St. John too ', as if he had found the very 



* Fulg. cont. Arianos, fuh finem. Beatus Joannes teftamr, 
dicens, Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, 
Verbum, & Spiritus \ 6c tres unum funt. Quod etiam B. M. 
Cyprianus in Epiftola de Unitate Ecclefia; contitetur, dicens — - 
*— de Patre, Filio, & Spiiitu Sandto fcripiain ell, & tres unum 
funt. 

Words 



2 1 ^n IrKjulry Into the 

Words Father^ Son, and Spirit^ in the Text* And 
this is all which Fulgentius himfelf^ fays of him. 
Keither of them fays that Cyprian found in 
St. John, the Father, Son, and Spirit, beiides the 
three WitnefFes in the eighth Ferfe. No, it was 
there he thought he might find the Father, Son^ 
and Spirit, myftically reprefented. And 1 ob« 
ferve two things to confirm it. 

1 . Fulgcmius fpeaks of it as a remarkable Con- 
cejfion in St. Cyprian, Quod etiam B» Cyprianus con* 
fitetur, which alfo St. Cyprian confejfes. ConfeffeS 
what ? that St. John had thofe Words, the Fa- 
ther, Word, and Spirit, and thefe Three are One? 
Was that fuch an Acknowledgment, if he found 
it in his Epifile ? No, but he acknowledg'd the 
Father, Son, and Spirit to be one^ out of St. John^ 
by a niyftical Interpretation of the Spirit, the 
Water, and the Blood, which are one* This indeed 
was fomewhat far-fetch'd, and not fo clear a 
Point, but St. Cyprian's confejfwg it might give it 
fome credit*, but it could give none to an un- 
doubted Text of St. John, to fay Cyprian acknow- 
ledged it to be true, i will not fay the Dodtor 
had any Defign in it, but 1 find in reciting the 
words, he has happen'd to change the confitetur 
into the more convenient Word, conteftatur. 

2. I obferve Cyfrians words are not the exad 
Words pretended to be found in St. John ; for 
Cyprian fays, Father, Son, ('not the Word) and 
Spirit, Kow tho the fame Perfon may be intend- 
ed by both words, yet 'tis plain there could be 
but one of them in the Text. And therefore, if 
our prefent primed Text be right, Cyprian had no 
fuch Copy, or elfe he did not keep ftrid^ly to it t 
and if he did not cite the words exaElly, only the 
Senfe of them as an Interpreter *, then in fuch a 
loofe way of fpeaking it might well be, as Facun- 
dus fays it was, viz.. his Senfe of the eighth Ferfe. 

^ So 



Authority of i John ^.y^. 35 

So that the Dodtor was too forward in faying 
that Cyprian could not have cited the Words of 
St. John (as we have them) more exa^ly^ if he had 
them before his eyes. 

Let the Interpretation be ever fo forced, that 
is nothing, fo ic was ^ and there are enough as 
/?r4A7^f Interpretations of Texts in the Fathers and 
in St. Cyprian himfelf, to fatisfy us this is no good 
Evidence it was not his*. And why may not 
Cyprian father a weak Interpretation as well as i 
St. Auftin ? JSIor was it unufual with Cyprian to 
cite Scripture more by ^/i 5f«/t of it, than by the 
ftridt Letter of the Text. Thus, inftead of Ltad Cypr. de 
us not into Temptation^ he cites it, Suff'er its not ^''^^* 
to be led, &c. Again, he cites Rev. ip. 10. Wox-^'"'^'''^' 
Jhip thou, the Lord Jefus, inftead of worjhip thou Cypr. de 
God, Will any fay, upon this, that he found a Bono Pa- 
particular Copy which had thefe Readings ? No "cnrix, 
furely, but rather that it vf as Cyprian's Expofi- ^' ^^* 
tion of the true Reading in all the Copies. Even 
fo, I doubt not, his words, the Father^ the Son^ 
and Spirit, thefe Three are One, was his Senfe of 
the eighth Verfe of St. "Johns fifth Chapter. 

I fhall conclude this with Mr. Dm Tins Judgment 
upon the Cafe: '7/j not then, fays he, abfolutely^'^^-^^ 
certain, that Cyprian hath quoted the feventh Ferfe ^^^ ^^' 
ofSt.]oWs Epiftle, And Father Simon's^, vjUo^^'Y 
fays, Wsout of doubt that he hath not. Tho 'tis crit. Hift. 
probable this Miftake of Cyprian's words led fome N.T. part 
following African Writers iato tlie Opinion that i* f* ^^* 
St, John had fa id them exprejly, 

Ajid thus I have fairly accounted for St. Cypri^- 
4»S -Words, without the Suppofition of his ha- 
ving a T/^mW Copy to himfelf. And then I think 
there is not one tolerable Pretence left of any an^ 



» See Dr. Whitby 'DiiTert. de S. Script. Interpretau 

C tic Tit 



2 A Jn lnc[uiYy into the 

tient Authority. Now it remains that we fee 
how the Dodor accounts for the Difficulties that 
lie A(rainft him \ from all the Greek Copes and Fa^ 
jfcfrf before and after Cyprian^ who knew nothing 
oithis Text: how then had Cyfrian fuch a parti- 
cular Copy above all others ? Does the Dodor 
clear himfelf ^ fairly of this, as we have of his 
Objeaion from Cyfrianh Words ? 
He puts very proper Queries here : If thefe 
\ Words ■I'^ere in St. John'j Original ^ hvw comes it to 

pafs that for three Ages following^ the Greek Fathers 
had it not in their Copies ? How came Cyprian, an 
African, to know itj when it was unknown to Irenseus, 
who was a very curious Inquirer into all Learnings 
(which IS Tertullians Charader of him ^) and who 
conversed with Polycarp, the Dffciple of St. John 
himfelf? But in Anfwer to thefe Queries, he is 
forced to frame many unreafonable Suppofitions : 
he knows not which way If was^ but he can ima- 
gine how poffibly it might have heen^ and then 
feems to believe it was fo. Let us hear his own 
^Account, 

If we ask how came thefe Words to be out of all 
the known Greek Copies f he anfwers, By mere 
Chance^ and Carelejfnejs of the Tranfcriber^ who cafi 
his eye upon the word fAetpTvp^y%iy or Witnefs, in the 
ei'^hth Verfe^ infiead of the fame Word in the /<?- 
wenth \ and fo went on^ unawares omitting the one 
f>t«tfTi;fM6^, or Witnefs, and all the words between 
th cm both. And then by reafon of Fepfecution Chrif" 
tians were in hafte^ and fiaid not to revife the Tranf- 
cript^ nor to compare with one-another^s Copies^ which 
were hut feWf becaufe of the Fains and Expences of 
tranj cribing : and the Original being at a difiance 



* < Cuiiollflimus omnium doitrinarum explorator, Irenaeus. 
Ttrtu L ient, Vaknt. 



from 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7.' jj 

from them when differs* d^ they could not examine by 
that' 

I grant, Miftakes of this kind have happen'd 
to Tranfcribers, where c,uo/o75AgJ/<*» Words of the 
fame endings or the fame Words have often oc- 
curr'd : but that it was not fo here, is plain, be- 
caufe the Tranfcriber had then raken the next 
Words to the fecond ^la^TVfhlii, which are, t^rf^f, 
in Earth : whereas the Dodor confefles thefe words 
were wanting alfo. This he was aware of, and 
therefore fupfofes once more^ that the Words in 
Earth might be in ihQ firfi Tranfcript^ but that the 
next time it was tranfcrib'd, or foon after, it 
was thought thofe Words were fuferfluousj and fo 
were left or dajh^d out ^ : and then Copies were 
taken by other Churches, and fo they fpread abroad 
thro Greece, Egypt, d-c. And this is the reafon 
that the antient Verftons and Writers knew nothing 
of this Text^ becaufe there were none but thefe 
maimed Copies among all the Greek Churches *f". 
But in procefs of time, he thinks, fome correcl Co* 
pies which lay hid in Alia (where t\it Original was) 
or fome other PartSy fome way or Other got into 
Africa, which TertulUan and Cyprian faw ; And 
the Times being troublefome^ few Copies only were 
taken for the ufe of the African Churches^ where they 
feem to have continued ^ and about lOQ Tears after 
they became common^ elfe the African Bijhops would 
not have alledged thefe Words in a Confeffion of Faith ^ 
if they had not been in their common Copies^ and in 
the Body of St. John'j Epiftle^ more than one or two 
Centuries, And about 250 Tears after Cyprian, 



* Curato hoc uno, ut verba Iv rf y? tanqaum fuperfitia dele- 
rentur. 

\ Nullum omnino codicem Ecdefiis Grascis in ufu fuifle cre- 
do, mil ^lii jtd muulacos, quos dicimus, defcriptus iic. 

C 2 the 



26 An Imiuiry into the 

the fpurious Author of the Diffutation^ faljly afcrih'd 
to Athanafius, perhaps might meet with a perfeEi 
Greek Copy : And then all was fet right. And 
fo we have his Anfwer to another Queflion^ 
viz. How the true Copy at laft came to light 
again ? 

I believe thi^ Account will fatisfy very few : if 
any Man (hould trace hi;s Pedegree after this man- 
ner, through fuch a train of wild Sufpofitions^ 
and improbable Imaginations of this and the other 
bare Pojfibility^ I fear he would ftill pafs for a 
fpuriom Pretender* And yn all this the Judicious 
Dr. Mill could fcem to believe, rather than this 
one Suppofition^ which is alfo well attefiedj That 
Sr. Cyprians Words were his Interpretation of 
the eighth Ferfe : for allo^y but this, and there 
was no need of racking his Invention at this 
rate. And Til appeal to Men of Candor, which 
of the two is more probable j that all thefe Suppv 
fitions Ihould happen, or that Facundus (hould fay 
true: efpecially when thefe few Remarks on the 
Dodtor's imaginary Account, fhall be duly con- 
fidered. 

I. Why fhould he fuppofe, they who were at 
the Pains or Expence, and had leifure of tranfcri- 
bing, would not be at a very little more, to re- 
view and examine their Tranfcripts ? which is fo 
natural and ufual, in matters of much lefs mo- 
ment than what concerns the Interefts of another 
Life, which to the primitive Chriftians were very 
dear. While they had the Original in their hands, 
it waseafy to be done. Surely they were not fo 
carelefs as the DoOor makes them to be : it appears 
what Senfe they had in early times, of the neceflity 
of comparing fuch Tranfcripts with the Originals^ 
by 7yfW4;ttJ ', to whofe Writings this fo I emn Mju^ 
ration is anncx'd : Adjure te per Dominum Jefum^ 
vt Qonferas poflquam tranfcripferis^ &c. / adjure 

thee 



Authority 0/ i John 5, 7. 37 

thee who flj all tranfcribe this Book^ hy the Lord Jefus 
Chrifi^ and by his glorious Appearance to judge the 
Ovick and the Dead^ that thou compare after thou 
hafi tranfcriPdj and amend it by the Original very 
carefully- To which parpofe Sr. Johns Words, 
Rev. 11, 18, 19. are probably to be underftood, 
as a Terror to all negligent and deceitful Tran^ 
fcribers of his Booh, 

But the Z)^^(7r pretends the Perfecution of the 
ChrifiianSy and their not daring to ajfemble but in 
the Nighty might hinder them : So far were they 
from having lei fur e to rexnew their Books ^ that they 
could not ajfemble but before day ^. As if this hin- 
der'd them from examining or comparing their 
Copies at home. Mult they needs do it in a pub- 
lick Aflembly ? Rather, was it not much better 
.to be done \n private i Therefore the X>oJ?or has 
another Imagination to help it out ; and that is, 
that Chriftians were in fuch eager hafte to catch 
the [acred Copies^ that they carry^d them off as they 
were f . As if, after fo much Pains or Expence for 
a Copy^ they would not take care to have it right. 
Befides, if the Defire was fo great^ then we may 
conclude the Tranfcripts were very many^ of io 
Ihort an Epiftle- And iince all the Transcribers 
could not make thQ fame Miftake^ nor many of 
them, I ask, 

2. Why muft only this one defeElive Copy be 
carry'd away into remote Countries, to become 
the fruitful Parent of all the Copies in the World 
that we can find \ and all the others ftay behind, 
or never be heard of more ? Is this likely i 
Were not the Pofleflbrs of the other Copies (which 



* Adeo non vacabant recenfioni librorum, ut ne quidem con- 
ycnire iis Hcuerit nifi ante lucem. 

f Libri cum primum exarati, avidifllme ^ Chriftianis ar- 
repti fmt, & in varias regiones diftradli, 

C 3 he 



^8 An Inquiry Into the 

he fuppofes there were) as much perfecuted and 
fcatter'd as the PoffeiTor of this one faulty Cofy ? 
And if they brought away theirs^ furely there 
would have been fome more and better figns of 
them than what is pretended from Cypriar?. 

3. Had not the Chriftians of that time often 
heard St, John's Epi file read to them, before they 
had it tranfcrib'd, as well as after ? This was the 
conftant PratSice of rk/V Affemblies, to read fome 
part of the Gofpels and thQ Jpofiles Wtitings^ as 
Jvftin Martyr and Terttillian tell us in their Apo- 
logies : which the Apoflle Paul expefted, and 
fometimes requir'd to be done ^ Col. 4. 16, i Theffi 
5. 27. Therefore if there had been an Omijfton 
in the Tranfcript, would not fome or other ealily 
have mifs^d lb memorable a Faflage as this Text 
contains ? 'Tis fo lingular and remarkable, that 
the OmilTion could fcarcely be unobferv'd, when, 
they came to read it over again, 

4. Why fhould he fuppofe again (to back his 
former hard Su^Y^oCition) tlmtSLny Chrifiians wovi*d 
fo evilly treat the Sacred Scriptures, as to firih 
out the Words in Earth-y for feeming to be fuperflu- 
ous f .Had they fo little Reverence for thefe Sa- 
cred Records, as to dafli out what they liked not ? 
And yet with thofe Words the Senfe and Context 
zx^ no way diflurb^d: there are an hundred Texts 
which contain Words more feemingly needlefs, 
and more hard to be accounted for, and which 
may as well be fpared, if we make our own Fan- 
cy the judge, as thefe Words^ which have indeed 
no Difficulty at all in them'^ and yet lam well 
fatisfy'd thofe Chriftians never would, nor did 
prefiime to dafh them out of their Copies, upon 
this flight Pretence, That they were fuperfluous, 

5. Doth Cyprianj after all, fay one word of any 
fuch things as his having had a better Copy than 
the reft of the Churches had ? Not a word , ancl 

yet 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7* 39 

yet one would think he fhould not wholly for- 
bear Caking fome notice of fo happy an Event. 
Or do any after him fay they found fuch a cor red 
Copy, or that ever they underftood he had one ? 
And what became of this valuable TVc^/ttre, after 
it had got into thefe fafe Hands ? For, 

6, How came it that St. Auflin^ fo long after 
him^ in a neighbouring Church, knew nothing 
oithis matter ^ And that in his Difputes with the 
uiriansy none fhould let him know what might 
have been fo ferviceable to him f In fuch times ot 
eager Contefts, it muft ha\:e foon/on7» about into 
the Neighbourhood, when adjacent Bifijops fo 
frequently met and confer'd ^ and the rather^ bc- 
caufe Cypriarjy and others after him, muft know 
that other Copiss^ were defe(flive in this place, and 
therefore it concern'd them to fend Intelligence 
to all round about them, how the true Text ftood : 
and yet the Dodor grants that St, Au(l:in knevi} 
not of it. And therefore I think it very apparent 
there was no fuch thing as Cyprian^s having /wc^ a 
Copy, notwithftanding the Dodor could fay 
certijfimum efi^ upon no manner of Evidence but 
his ufing thofe Expreffions which are already other- 
wife accounted for^ and of which Mr. Vu Pin 
fays, V/j not certain that St» Cyprian quoted St^ 
John'j Words ^ and Father Simon^ that without 
doubt he did not. 

By thefe things it appears, that Dr. Mill not 
only could not give any true Account, how it 
really came to pafs that all the CTr^t^ iManufcripts 
and Writers (hould be ignorant of this Ferfe^ 
and yet Cyprian recover it from the Original *, but 
that fetting his Imagination to work, he could 
not fo much as invent or contrive a way, how it 
could pojfibly be done, with any tolerable Shew of 
Probability, or Confillency of Gircumllaaces, 

C 4 Since 



40 Jn hquiry into the 

Since therefore he has made fuch a furfrizing 
Conclufion in favour of this Text^ fo anfuitable to 
his Fremifes^ and againit all the Rules of Criticifm \ 
in preferring one Copy to all the Copies befides \ 
one Father to all the Fathers : nay rather, with- 
out one Copy, rejeding all the Manufcript Co- 
pies ^ and fetting one fuppofedj at belt but dubious^ 
Teftiroony of one or two Fathers, againft all the 
certain Evidences from all the Copies and all the 
Fathers for near <^oo rears: 1 fay, fince'tis thus, 
1 cannot wonder at the Remark made by the fa- 
mous Le Clerc upon the DoEiors great Candor and 
Juftice in dating the Evidence, and his ftrange ' 
Caution in concluding againft it \ in the Preface to 
Kufterh Edition : * If Dr, Mill (fays he in relation 
to this Text) hath not toncluded here like a judicious 
Critick^ yet certainly he hath fhown himfelf to he a 
^ candid and ingenuous Man^in producing the Arguments 
which ejfeclually overturn his own Opinion : nor would 
I impute this to his want of Judgment, in not yielding 
to the Force of fuch Arguments, fo much as to the 
Prejudice of a fort of Men, who are wont fpite fully 
to reproach thofe who freely own the Truth ', as if they 
favoured I know not what Herefies, merely hecaufe 
they will not argue againft ^em from corrupted Texts, 
Truly the heft Men are fometimes under a necejfity of 
giving way to the frowardy which we muft forgive* 



^ Si aciuum Criticum hie fe minime praeftitit Millius, at certe 
ingenuum 8< candidum virum fe oftendit, in proferendis rationi- 
bus, quibus fententia, quam ipfe amplexus eft, evertftur. Nee 
turn ejus judicio afcripferim, quod rationum pondere fe permo- 
veri nonf paflus fit, quam iis qui libera vecitatem profeltbs ma- 
ligne infamare fo!cnr, quafi haerefibus nefcio quibus faverenf, 
quia nolunt eas depravatis locis oppugnarr. Scilicet, optimi qui- 
que viri Fadb'ofis nonnihil concedere necefle fxpe habent, quod 
facile ignofcimus, Clerki Efiji* de Editione M'illiana. 

And 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 41 

And yet at the fame time I willingly confent, 
that his great Learnings his indefatigable Labour^ 
^//accurate Judgment-^ and worthy Defign^ in this 
noble Undertaking, fhall not fail to perpetuate 
his high Efteem, and very honourable Remem- 
brance to remotefi Ages. Kor indeed is his Judg- 
ment given in this point, but with the Modefl;y 
of one ready, M'^ovi better Information^ to alter it; 
which he feems to fufped there might be ground 
for, in the Clofe oihis Differtation ^, 



BUT whatever Reflraints Dr. Mlll^ in his 
private Capacity, might lie under, from 
dtclaring his Mind more ofenly^ they affed not 
your Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy in Convocn" 
tion J whom, with all the Refped due to fo rene^ 
rable a Body, and with the Humility of aSuppli^ 
cant^ I befeech to corffider of this matter, as in the 
fight of God'y whether here be not fufficient Evi- 
dence that this Text either certainly^ or at leafl: 
very probably^ never was originally in the Holy 
Writings of St, John, but unwarrantably thruft in 
in later times. And if fo, whether from the 
confcientious Regards ^o« bear to the facred Scrip- 
tures, they ought not to be puig'd of all fuch 
injurious Additions. In order to which, permit 
roe, I pray, without t\{t\t2L^ AffeEhation of being 
your Monitory or the Arrogance of an alTuming Z)/- 
re^or, humbly to befpeak your very ferious 
Thoughts upon thefe foWomag Confiderations* 



* Meliora, fi quid melius certiufque dcderit longior dies, dif- 
«ere parato. 

4- I, Whe- 



A I An Inquiry into the 

1. Whether /«6;? Evidence, as is brought a- 
gainft this Fcrfe before a?, wou'd not be jodg'd 
by you fufficient againit any PafTage in any CUf" 
fck Anthor whatever? Wou'd notfucha Paflage 
prefently be pronounc'd fpurwus^ and be brought 
under a Deleatur by the unanimous Voice of the 
Critich^ when they had no concern in it, but to 
judge what is true and genuine, and what not ? 
Kay, would a Court of Judicature allow any Pa- 
ragraph to be good, in a Writing of confequence, 
for which no more, and againfi which fo much 
can be fairly faid ? And will not the /^r/ae Sincerity 
and Impartiality well become us in this^ which 
we can not only well juftify, but commend in the 
Examination of ether Writings ? Shall we prefs 
Men to take that for Evidence here^ which will 
pafs no where elfe ? 

2. Whether an awful Regard to that dread- 
ful Anathema^ or Denunciation left on Record 
by St. Johuj Rev. 22. 18. againit all who add toj 
or dimi?jifj from his Writings, will permit you 
to be unconcern'd in the matter before you 1 It 
cannot be fuppos'd that thofe Words Ihou'd not, 
at leaft by Parity of Reafon, concern hii other 
Writings, as well as the Revelation \ efpecially 
when we remember how general the Precept was, 
not to add nor to dimimjh^ Deut. 4. 2. Trov, 30. 6. 
The Threatning is very fevere: God Jhall add ta 
him the Plagues that are written in this Booh^ are 
words of fo much terrour^ as will fufficiently 
juftify your Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy'' s 
utmoft Caution to avoid 'em ^ whatever more 
carelefs People may think or fay. Whether the 
keeping in an unjaft Addition to the Word of 
God, when 'tis our part and in otir power to rec- 
tify it, comes, or not, within the Prohibition^ 
none concern'd can think below their fober Con-? 
fideration. It might perhaps (omc in with lefs 

guilt 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7, 45 

guilt thro Ignorance, than it can be heft in^ whea 
the Fault is difcover'd. 

The Oracles of God are a Sacred Depo/itum 
lodg'd with the Church ^ Rom. 3. 2. Te? them are 
committed the Oracles of God', in this truft furelf, 
that they be kept inviolable, and be tranfmitted 
to Pofterity pure and clean from all known ktdtnan 
jidditions \ whofe Authority is fo infinitely in- 
ferior to th^lVords of God, that they ought not 
knowingly to be intermix'd therewith: efpeci- 
ally by thofe who are the Stewards of the Myfte- 
ties of God, and who exped that others fhou'd 
feek the Law at their Mouths \ of whom 'm re* 
cpiird that they he found faithful* 

Our twentieth Article tells us, The Church is the 
Witnefs and Keeper of Holy Writ : and there- 
fore mull not bear either falfe or vncertain wit^ 
nefs in fo folemn a matter, as to fay that is Holy 
Writ, which fhe has the greateft reaibn to judge 
is not fuch, 'Tis a difmal thing to have it faid 
to your Flocks, Thus faith the Lord, when the Lord 
hath not fpoken it : and a hard task it is on him 
that reads this in the Church for St. John\ 
Words, who doth not believe it to be fuch^ 

3, Whether the Honour and Intereft of our 
Holy Religion will not be hettcr fervM by dif^ 
owning ingenuoufly what we find to be an Error^ 
even tho it have long pafs'd as current as Truth ? 
Weak People, I confefs, may be apt to cry out 1 

of Innovation (as upon all forts of Reformation) 
That Religiou is fuhverted, that all is uncertain, &c. 
Archbifhop ^ Laud once made th:: fad Complaint .- 
When Errors are grown by Age and Continuance to 
ftrength, they which fpeak for the Truth, tho it be 
far older, are ordinarily challenged for the Bring ers" 



f Preface againfi Fifher* 

in 



44 ^^ Inquiry into the 

in of new Opinions : and there is no greater Ahfur* 
dity ftirring this day in Chriftendom, &c. This 
indeed may grieve a good Man^ but muft Truth 
and Piety therefore be facrific'd to the Ignorance 
and Terverfenefs of Men ? Muft we then prophejy 
to them fmooth things^ only becaufe they love to 
have it fo ^ and not acquaint 'em with their Er- 
rorsy becaufe they'll murmur againft us? I re- 
member St. Paul once made fome of his Friends 
to become his Enemies ^ by telling ^em the Truthy 
Gal. 4. \6. God forbid that any of his Supceffors 
Ihou'd be fo difcourag'd by it, as not to tell the 
trvth^ for fear of making Men their Enemies. If 
fo, we lliou'd appear to take more care of our 
felves^ than of the Imerefts of Chriji-^ and his Re- 
ligion. 

Pardon me, if I fpeak with humble Freedom, 
what I think not of without real Griefs that this 
falfe Notion of Peace has often well nigh ruin'd 
Religion. Chviftianity had never come in, if our 
Bleffed Mafter had ftifled the Truth for fear of 
difquieting the Family, by dividing the Father 
againft the Son^ and the Mother againft the Daugh" 
ter^ Luke 12. 51, 52, 53. This Political Wif- 
dom, which is firft peaceable, and then^ or never-i 
is pure \ is juft the Reverfe of that Wifdom from 
abcve^ which is firfi pure. Jf it be pojfihle we mufi 
live peaceably with all Men ^ Rom. 12. 18. but, we 
can do nothing againft the Truth^ fays the fame 
Apoftle, 2 Or. 13. 8- 'iiJ)jvATov muft give place 

to « AfVetiJii^ct,' 

For true Religion is never more in credit, 
than when her Votaries, and efpecially her Guides 
and Teachers, who minifter in her Holy Offices, 
deal fincerely and openly in things appertaining 
to God : Not walking in Craftinefs, nor handling 
the Word of God deceitfully^ but by Manifeftation 
of the Truth commending themfelves to every Mans 

Confcieme 



J'uthority 0/ i John 5. 7, 4j 

Confcience in the fight of God. Not by putting 
falfe colours upon what they know they cannot 
juftify, or feeking to deceive Men in Sacred Mat- 
ters i which being once difcover'd, weak Minds are 
apt to think the worfe of Religion, for what is 
none of her fault, but is aded in a plain Viola- 
tion of her Laws. 

Nothing will tend more to harden Vnbellevers 
in their unjvft Sufpicions and Reproaches, than 
to fee that no Amendment can be obtain'd upon 
the moft manifefi difcovery of an Error ; but that 
right or wrongs their Teachers and Guides will 
continue with refolution, what they find came in 
by Miftake. What will it avail for honeft Men 
to ftudy and inquire after Trvth^ when convincing 
Men will not make 'em reform? As if Refor- 
mation was fuch an unreafonahle thing, that it 
were better to continue our Faults, when they 
can't be forfaken with a general Approbation. 

In the Cafe before you, 'tis too /^r^ to conceal 
the Evidence againfi the Text 1 have treated of: 
it has been long obfervM, oft objeded, and much 
needs Satisfadion. And if your Lordfhips and the 
Reverend Clergy fhall pleafe to inftrud us, by 
better Evidence^ that there is no wrong done to 
the Text of St. John \ or, being convinc'd that 
there is^ fhall hereupon promote a jult Altera- 
tion of this in our printed Books, according to 
all the Greek Manufcripts^ that fo your People may 
fee that, at leaft, yo^i take it for dovbtful \ will 
not this upright Method fliew to the World that 
you are fair and ingenuous beyond exception, 
and that you feek after Truth in the Love of it ? 
This (hall convince them that you are thch faith- 
ful Guides^ which will enable you, in a very 
ferious and not far diftant Hour, with St. Paul^ 
rich and happy in the inefttmable Treafures of a 
good Confcience, to make that triumphant Boaft, 

That 



46 \/{n Inquiry into the 

That with Simflicity and godly Sincerity^ and not 
toith fiejJjiy^ or worldly, Wifdom^ by the Grace of 
Cod, you have a5led towards the World^ and towards 
your Flocks* 

1 think I may fafely add, that what I propofe^ 
will greatly filence the Cavils of the Anti-Scrip' 
turifisj when they objed th^ different Readings id 
the feveral Copies of the New Tefiament, To 
which 'tis a very good Anfwer^ that thefe Diffe- 
rences are only in Circumfiances^ or in matters of 
very little confequence to Religion^ and which 
'tis morally impofTible Ihou'd be otherwife, in a 
Book fo oft tranfcrib'd, and in fo long a Trad 
of Time. In other Inftances 'tis truly fo ; the 
Differences are very fmall, as Dr. MilPs CoUedion 
of the various Readings doth abundantly fhew* 
But wou'd not this Anfwer be fomewhat clearer 
and ftronger^ if juftice were done to the Text 
in the Point I have argu'd? I know not one 
In fiance which interferes with the aboyefaid An^ 
fwer fo much as this. How Ihall we fay that 
this Text is of fmall confequence in Religion, 
which is fo oft alledg'd by Preachers and Writers, 
as of eminent force in proof a Fundamental Ar- 
ticle of Chriftianity? Is it not pity we fhou'd 
needlejly leave 'em fuch an unjuft Pretence ? Were 
it not better to cut off all Occafion, from them 
who feek Occafion to cenfure the Holy Scrip- 
tures^ when we can fo truly and juftly jdo it ? 
becaufe there really is no difference in the Greek 
Copies, but all of 'em agree in wanting this 
Verfe\ fo that the Objedion appears flronger 
than it isy or than it ought to appear, 

4. Doth not the fixth Article of our Church 
exclude this Ferfe from being a part of thofe 
Holy Scriptures which Jfe^ receives? for /^ tells us, 
that by the Scripture fhe underftands thofe Cano- 
meal Books of the Old and New Teftament^ ofwhafc 
4- Authority 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7.' 47 

jiuthority was nevtr an) doubt in the Church] Is 
not the Cafe the fame with any fart of thofe 
Books ? And will any venture to fay there «f- 
ver was^ or that at prefent there is not very great 
ttoubt of this Verfe in the Church ? Whereas if 
there be any doubt for it^ 'tis the utmolt that 
can be made of Dr. MUl\ Dijftrtation, 

5. Whether in our grimed Bibles fome Words 
are not quite omitted, or by a fmaller CharaBer 
vifibly diftinguifh'd, as doubtful, for vohich there 
is far greater Authority, than for thefe under 
confideration? Nay, this is done in this very 
Eflfiit of St. "fohn^ ch. 2. v. 23. Dr. Mill has 
fhown that thofe Words, He that acknowledges 
the Son^ hath the Father alfo ^ are in fevers! va- 
luable Copies^ and antient f^erfions^ and in the 
Fathers^ even in St, Cyprian too : and yet not being 
in many other Copies, the Wifdom of the Church 
hath mark'd ^em for dubious^ to (hew how cau- 
tious (he was there^ not to put wrong or uncer'* 
tain Scriptiue upon her Members. Yet here is a 
Text in the fame Epifile^ which has not one 
quarter^ nay, i think I may truly fay, has not 
any of that Authority for it ^ and which was 
once in the fame cafe, diftinguilh'd by fmaller 
CharaBers^ as of lefs certain x\uthority, from the 
beginning of the Reformation : and now the for?ner 
Caution is withdrawn, this is advanc'd into the 
Rank of undoubted Textj whereas the other is left 
as it was. Which^ however, ferves to fhew us, 
what we may fairly expeft in reafon flwud be 
done, by fuch a Text as has nothings even of that 
leffer Evidence, which hath not yet advanc'd the 
other into the undoubted Text. If there had not 
been fome more occafion for one than for the 
other^ 'tis pofFible they had both remain'd in the 
fame ftate. Therefore, 

6. It 



48 'An Inquiry into the 

6. It may reafonably be enquir'd, if there be 
any more Evidence for this Text^ fince the firlfc 
Reformation? The prefent current Notions of 
the Trinity were receiv'd then as much as now^ 
perhaps more v and yet as Luther wou'd not put 
thii into the Text in any Edition of his German 
Bible, nor durib BulUnger take it in, fo our old 
Bibles in Henry V\\\h and f^rp^r^ Vl's time, had 
ihefe Words of the feventh Ferfe^ and the words 
in Earthy in the eighth^ in fmall Letters, and 
fometimes in a Parenthefis ; to (hew they were 
not to be efteem'd of the fame certain Authority 
with the other parts of the EpiftUj becaufe the 
Manufcripts wanted 'em. In Queen EUzabeth^s 
Bible, 1 5(5(5. 1 find the fame ^ and her lattef 
Bibles were the frfi which took ^em in, as they 
now are, between 1 566, and 1 580. but whether 
by the influence of the Convocation which inter- 
ven'd, I know not. And if it was a dubious 
Text then, fome may ask what further Evidence 
arifes fmce, tohavecaus'd this change? Has any 
antient valuable Greek Manufcript newly appearM ? 
Yes ^ the molt valuable of ally the Alexandrian 
Manufcripty has fince that time been brought 
among us : but alas ! this has added great weight 
to the Evidence againfi it^ Befides, Exafmus\ 
Britijh Copyy and the Complutenfian Teflament^ and 
the Miftake about Stephens'*^ feven Manufcripts^ 
were not underftood to be fo void of all weight, 
as now they appear to be. If the firft Refor- 
mers then had as much Evidence for itj and 
thought they had more than* we can now 
think we have, and not fo much to fay againft 
it as we i and yet they judgM it"but juft to leave 
it doubtful : how is it that we fliall juftify their 
SuccefTors, who have ventur'd upoa what they 
dared not to do ? 

Nay; 



Authority of i John ^.y. 49 

Nay, if your LordJIiips and the Reverend Clergy 
don't think this Text to be certainly fpurious, I 
wou'd humbly propofe, whether it be not mofi- 
likely to be foF And then whether it be not fafer 
to put it out^ than to keep it in the place 'tis 
fw ? Nay, whether it be not at leaft dubious ? 
and then whether it ought not to be mark'd as 
fuch^ for your Peoples Obfervation ? I befeech 
you, let us but obtain fo much as I think your 
felves will, and as the firfl Reformers did fee to 
be juft and reafonable, or convince us that this 
Requelt is not fo : elfe what remains, but to fit 
down, wonder, and defpair ? 'Tis but an eafy 
itep, and will be well warranted, to return to 
that which our firft Reformers wifely and un- 
blamably did. It can be no reproach to be as 
juft to the People as they were ; and to return 
again with Reafon^ to that which has been altered 
without Reafon, 

7. Laftly, the great Importance of the fub- 
jed matter of this much-doubted Text^ well de- 
ferves your molt impartial Judgment upon it6 
The DoEirine of the Blejfed Trinity is purely de- 
pendent on Revelation *, varioufly underftood by 
ChrifiianSy both of the Clergy and Laity-, and 
bound upon the Members of the Church by very 
direful Anathema" s^ fcarce any more terrible^ ex- 
cept that of St. John againit fuch as Ihall add to^ 
or take from his Writings. Now, fince 'tis to 
the Scriptures that you make appeal for proof 
of this Dodrine, and for the right underfianding 
of it; 'tis moft juft that in fo folemn a matter 
you warn your Flocks not to be milled, by mif- 
taking an unwarranted modern Addition for aa 
infpired Oracle* 

I pretend not to make any Interpretation of 
theWordsi ti\[ their Authority be prov'd : but 
moft judieious Expofitors undetft^ad ThefeThree 

P 4r« 



Jn Inquiry into the 

are One^ of an Vnity of Confent^ or in Witnefs- 
bearing \ as BuUinger^ Calvin^ Bez,a^ and many 
other, both Frotefiam and Tofiiln Writers. 

But let 'em fignify much or little, in the Con- 
troverfy about the philofophical Kature of the 
Three Terfons ; yet as they are always likely to be 
drawn into the fervice of what is molt prevalent 
and current, fo 'tis certain the common People 
have their eyes upon thi^^ more than on any un- 
doubted Text in the Bible, in this Controverfy. 
And fo far they muft be deceiv'd, if it he fpu- 
rious. And it is in your Lordfiips and the Clergy^ 
power to let 'em know it, and to refer 'em to 
other Texts, which you can mffure them are ge- 
nuine. 

Nor is there any doubt to be made, but the 
People think fome Branches of the Liturgy have 
their main Foundation oxi this one doubted Text. 
When they hear. Three Terfons and One God^ in 
the fourth Petition of the Litany ^ and who with 
thee and the Holy Ghofi ever liveth and reigneth one 
Gody in the Doxologies *, they think nothing in the 
New Teftament fo like it as this dubious Text* 
And will you not think it great pity, that 
your People (hou'd build fo weighty things on 
fuch a (leader Foundation, if your felves fo 
judge it ? 

I fpeak this^ becaufe I know not any other 
Text that direBly or clearly fays the fame thing, 
"viz. that the Father^ Word^ and Spirit^ are One, 
They are not join'd in one JDoxology^ nor indeed 
do I find atiy given to the Holy Spirit in the New 
Teftament^ either jointly or feparately ^ much lefs 
h the Spirit faid to be one with the Father and 
the Son. I read of one Spirit^ one Lord^ one God 
and Father^ Eph. 4. but not that tjhefe Three are 
the One God, And if there be no other Text 
which fays this^ 'tis not the more likely to have 

been 



w 

Authority of iJoHN 5.7. 

been St. Johns Saying here; but t\\Q more grie- 
vous to have it inferted by any who had not 
his Authority. 

Whether, upon the whole, this Pajfage fhaU 
by your diredion, in our printed Books be fairly 
difownd and marJi'd as formerly, or better ^7«- 
dicated^ 1 know not : but if neither of thefe be 
done, and if Preachers and Writers ftill go on, 
without due regard to Juftice and their own 
Efieem^ to urge this as an Authority.^ after all 
that is faid to fhew it has none ; 1 apprehend, 
there are many underltanding Chriftians will be 
apt to think they are not /^?V/y dealt with. 

And 1 hope it fhall not be thought to pro- 
ceed from any want of due Veneration for your 
Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy y if an high 
Efteem of the Learnings the Judgment^ Integrity^ 
and hearty Zeal for our Holy Religion and the 
Sacred Scriptures, which they are perfuaded dwell 
with an Englijh Convocation^ fiiall excite many of 
your People^ as well as of the Clergy^ to fome Ex* 
pedtations in this matter. 

1 fhall only fet down the Advice and Requeft 
of BigenhagiuSj a Lutheran Divine : having ob- 
lerv'd this Ferfe to be putin^ without any rea- 
fonable Pretence of Authority, and having ex» 
claim'd againft it as an impious hold Addition to 
the Sicred Scripture^ and what (he fays) efiahlijhes 
the Arians BUjphemyj and therefore jfufpeded was 
their Contrivance \ he concludes, ^ I hefeech the 
Printers^ and fuch Learned Men as are aiding to 
them^ that when at any time hereafter they Jh^Il re^ 
print the Greek Teftamenty they leave out that Ad- 

* Obfecro igitur Chalcographos & Erudites Vifos qui Chal- 
cographis adfuut, ut cum rurium pofthac N. Teft, grsc^ ex- 
cudendum eft, illam additionem omittanr, & ita reftituant Grgeca 
fuae priori integiitati & puiitati, propter yeritatem, ad gloriam 
Dei. In Expofu. -Jon£» 

D 2 dition. 



^t An Inquiry Into the 

ditlon, and fo reft ore the Greek to its former Purity ^ 
fortheLoveofTruthj and the Glory of God. 

With which Requeft, I humbly hope your Lord- 
jlnps and the Reverend Clergy will fee great^ reafon 
to comply •, and the rather, becaufe 1 am inftruc- 
ted by a very Great f Prelate (who was once 
the Head of fuch a Convocation^ and very tender 
of the Church's Honour) Ihat the Church is not fo 
hound vpj that Jhe may not^ on jufl and farther 
Evidence^ revife what may in any cafe have ftift 
by her. Whether this be not one of thofe Cafes, 
is fubmitted to your impartial and difcerning 
Judgment. 



A Foflfcrift^ in Anfrver to the Excufes offered 
to take off the Force of this Addrefs. 

I Am perfuaded, the Addrefs I have made to 
your Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy , is 
for the Matter of it fo reafonablc and necef- 
fary, and may with fo much good Confcience 
and Juilice to Truth be comply 'd with^ that I 
am embolden'd again to renew it, with the Ear- 
neftnefs which becomes a matter of fo great 
importance to the Honour of our Holy Reli- 
gion. 

It might indeed in your Wifdom feem meet 
to wait a while, to fee what could be faid in 
defence of the Words ^ which are charg'd to be 
an Interpolation of the true and facred Text, 
before the Convocation fhould determine what 
to do with them. But fince no Man has at- 
tempted it to any purpofe, and all feem filent 



f ABp Laud*; Preface agalnji Filher, 

under 



Authority 0/ i John 5, 7. 55 

under the Imputation of fo great a Wrong done 
to the Holy Scripture and the Church of God ; 
and fince I can learn nothing from the Publick, 
either from the Convocation or the Prefs, why 
our common Bibles Ihould not in this place be 
regulated according to the true Original, as I 
have humbly propofed \ 1 have inquired in private 
what any of the Clergy or others have to fay in 
excufeof it. And tho I do not think the Re- 
verend Bifljops ox Clergy in Convocation will abide 
by any fuch (lender Apologies^ yet for the Satif- 
fddionof private Perfons, 1 will fet them down 
here, and confider the Force of them. 

Excufe I. There is no need to urge this mat- 
ter any farther, fay fome, becaufe this Text is 
given up already^ and is allow'd by Learned Men 
not to be genuine. 

Rcfp, Thefe Men do indeed confefs that the 
Text ought to be given up, as palt all juft de- 
fence ^ but 'tis very wrong to fay, 'tis enough 
that a few learned Men know it. The Bible is a 
publick Book, for the ufe of all, and is tranflated 
for the ufe of the Unlearned ^ and for their Good 
it Ihould be fet out free from all known Cor- 
ruptions. And the Learned, who know this Text 
is 10 be given up, fhould honeftly let the World 
know it too, who are as much concern'd as they. 
But 'tis never given vp fairly, till it be left oat 
of our printed Copies \ nor is it declared to be 
dubiousy till it be again mark'd in fmall Letters. 
Let a difference be made between what is given 
up, and what is not fo, left fome think other 
even genuine Texts be given up too, tho they 
ftand unmark'd, fmce this is fo. But alas! 'tis 
vain to fay 'tis given up, while 'tis read undif- 
tinguifh'd in the Churclf, and urg'd from the 
Pulpit, in proof of a fundamental Point of Reli- 
gion : ancj whik Commentators ftill deliver it as 

their 



c4 .^n Inquiry into the 

their Opinion that 'tis genuine, and according 
to the true Original of St. John. Which Dr. IVeilsy 
tho without anfwering the Arguments againft it, 
and therefore without julb reafon, has not fear'd 
to do^ in his late Expofltion of this Epifile\ and 
yet he is one who has appear'd in the Contro- 
verfy this Text relates to, and has had the Ar- 
^^unieats againll: its Genuinenefs laid before him, 
in Dr. Clarke''^ Letter to him^ and therefore ought 
to have conlider'd this matter, and if he could, 
to have anfwer'd the Arguments that lie againft 
his bare Afiertion. 

Excufe 2. Others fay, the Words may Hand as 
they do, becaufe if St^John has not laid them, 
yet other Texts fay the fame thing. 

Refp. 'Tis not fo ^ as has been laid already, 
p. 50. I never found any ferioufly pretend to it ^ 
only that they could by confequence infer the 
like, as ihey imagin'd, and others deny it. And 
muft a doubtful Confequence of one Text be 
thruft into another part of Scripture as exprefs 
Text? What Scripture lliall we have at this rate, 
if every Church or Party may jput their difpu- 
table Interpretations iato the Sacred Text ? SoxTiQ 
may think Three Infinite Minds 10 be proved by 
good confequence (as they imagine) from fome 
Texts '-i others that Three Infinite Modes are the 
three Perfons, Father^ Son^ and Hdy Sprit : fhall 
this be put into the Text therefore, ws:. And 
thefe Three Infinite Minds are one^ or thefe three 
Infinite Modes are one} I fee not but the fame 
Apology as v/ell would ferve them, as it does ia 
the prefent cafe. We are not feeking what other 
Texts may imply, but what St. y<?^» hasexprelly 
faid. 

Excufe 3. Others* fay, that St. Cyprian (on 
whofe miftaken Authority the Caufe has chiefly 
refted hitherto) does however own the Senfe of 

thefe 



Authority 0/ i John 5. 7 • ^^ 

thefc Words, if he did not find them in the Text y 
fince he makes it the Interpretation of the next 
Words, in which he judg'd St. John to have faid 
the fame in efFed. 

Refp. What if St. Cyprian did fuppofe fo^ viz^ 
that the Water, Blood, and Spirit, might be ac* 
commodated to the Father, Son, (for he does not 
fay the Word) and Spirit ? Shall St. Cyprian's 
little Fancy be put into the Text ? Is St, Cyprian^s 
Authority as good as St. Johns'^ I enquire what 
St. John has faid, and thefe Men tell me only 
what Cyprian fays. If Cyprian had any good Rea- 
fons for fuch an Interpretation of the three 
Witnefles, in the next word?, I hope they will 
Hill be heard when produced; and fo long as 
this Text^ about the Water, Blood, and Spirit, 
Itands undoubted, there will always be this Proof 
of the Trinity in Vnity, left fafe and found for 
the Followers of St. Cyprian, in all the clearnefs 
and ftrcngth it had in St. Cyprianh time. But 
then let it only be proved from thefe genuine 
Words of St. John, and let not the fuppos'd In- 
ference be thruft into the Text, to make it pafs 
more current ', fince a human Inference may 
with modefty be queftion'd, when a Divine Ora- 
cle is immediately aficnted to as facred. 

Excufe 4. Laftly, Some think it beft to have 
it pafs for the Printers Fault, in omitting to put 
the Words in fmall Letters as was ufual, with- 
out any Order. 

Refp, But are not the Reverend Bifhops and 
the Clergy the Overfeers both of the Church 
and of the Sacred Depofttum of the Holy Scrip* 
tures, that they be kept undepraved, for the 
Edification of their Flocks ? Have they not had 
time fufEcient, thefe hundred Years and more, 
to efpy this Fault, and to amend it ? Kay, 
\h plain they have approved it, for 'tis read 

ift 



^6 An Inquiry J Sec. 

in tbe Church as Sacred Text ; 'tis oft preach'd 
on, and alkdg'd in proof even of what is ac- 
counted the molt fundamental Article of the 
Chriftian Faith. Add to this, that our Bible 
has been revifed and. amended by the new Tranf- 
lators, (ince this Interpolation crept in; and 
yet they have continu'd it as it was. So that 
I think the Fault is taken off from the Prin- 
ters \ and where it ought next to be laid, is 
an Inquiry which I humbly hope your Lordfljips 
and the Reverend Clergy^ in Faithfulnefs to your 
Flocks, and in Love to the Truth, and at the^ 
earneft Defires of the very ^ Laity^ will by an 
efre<aual and timely Amendment of the Miftake, 
wholly fuperfede as needlefs 2 that inftead of 
fuch poor Excufes and Evalions, IMen may be 
taught honeftly to confefs the Truth, and to 
be content with the Sacred Text, as God and 
his Holy Spirit gave it, rather than deiire to 
have it amended, better to fuit their own Schemes 
and Fancies. 

Pfalm 119. 128. I efieem all thy Precepts to be 
right y but I hate every falfe Way» 



* See the Layman's Addrefs to the BiQiops and Clergy, 
pa^, 18. We flattered our JelveSy fame or other of your 
Learned and mofi Venerable Order would have given an- 
An fiver to that Inquiry ; (/. e, into I John $, 7.) but inftead 
of that, we have of late been alarmed with Reports that a 
very learned Critick, a Member of the Lower Houfe, Dr, Bent- 
ley, Mafter of Trinity-College, being an Archdeacon^ is upon 
an Edition of the Greek Teftamenty and intends to omit that 
Text, And we fee nothing in defence thereof^ but a fhort 
Letter written on that occafion to the Do^or, by a Lay' 
tnin. This therefore we humbly pray may be taken intc 
Coudderation, 



THE END 



160 

A CRITICAL 

DISSERTATION 

Seventh Ve r se 



O F T H E 



Fifth Chapter 



O F 



St John S First Epistle, 

There are Three^ that hear record in 
Heaveriy &c. 

Wherein the Authentickness of this 

Text is fully prov'd againft the 

Objedions of Mr. Simon and the 
modern Brians. 



Written originally in French by Mr. Martin^ 
and now tranflated into Englijh. 



h O N D O N: 

Printed for William and John Innys, at 
the Prince's Arms at the Weft End of St. PauV% 
Church-yard. 171^. (Pr. iJ.(5rf.) 



immmm^^p<mm^m^^,^ 



THE 




.V>.W».X%.VV.-«M 



PREFACE. 

p' '" ^//£ ^^/^g^ of this treattfe h 
to Vindicate one of the mofi 
excellent paffages throughout 
the whole Scripture^ agatnji 
the Attach fome late Cr'itkks have form'd 
to prove ttfuppoftttttous. I fear the mofi 
candid of its oppoferSy who refpeB the do^ 
clrme this Text enforces as of divine re^ 
velation^ have not enough conftder'd the 
dangerous confequences that naturally 
flow from the fentiments they mamtain. 
For tf fo fundamental a Text of Religion 
could pofjibly infmuate it f elf into the Ho- 
ly Scriptures^ either thro"" prejudice of 
party y or the negligence and inattention 
of the principal perfonSy in whofe hands 
the Sacred Books were depofited ; is it not 
rational to fuppofe the fame thing may 
have happened to fome other Texts ^ where- 
on the Faith has been eftabliflo'dy and 
zvhich yet ferve for its foundation 7 It may 

A z he 



«?• 



The PREFACE. 

he nr^d perhaps we have other Texts 
enough to prove the truth of that Orthodox 
doBrmey without having recourfe to the 
pajfage in St. John'5 Ep'tjile. I allow 
there are other places full to this purpofty 
yet this to me feems not a fufficient reafon 
for giving up the great advantage this paf-- 
fage affords us : there is danger in the ex^ 
periment j beftdes^ that the furrender is 
too cheapo and we hereby pay a complain 
fance to the herefy this Text encounters^ 
which in no wife it deferves. If the Text in 
quefiion he not Canonical^ we ought to re-^ 
jeB it for that very reafon^ hecaufe His 
not Scripture: but before we come to this 
concluftony we fhould examine the matter 
to the bottom y and not reft fatisfy^d with 
an uncertain Criticifm^ which turns only 
upon the Silence offome ancient Writers^ 
or upon the omijjions infome Greek MSS^ 
of St. John's Epijile. Nothing but thefe 
can he ur^d againfl it *y and we Jhall fee 
in the following Differtation that no argu- 
ments can he weaker than thefe ^ nothing 
more inconclufive. 

THE 




THE 



CONTENTS. 

PART I. 

C H A P. I. 

O W this paffage fir ft came to he thought Sup- 
pofititious y of the progrefs of that opinion^ with 
a brief account of the reafons^ 'whereon it is 
founded. Page i . 

Chap. II. 

fhat this pa If age of St, John has he en always in St. 
JeromV Tranfiation of the Bibk\ p. j. 

Chap. III. 

l*he fame propofition^ that this verfe of St. John has 
been always in St. JeromV l!ranflation^ proved by the 
quotations which have been made of it from age to age 
up to the feventh Century, p. 1 1. 




Chap, 



The CONTENTS. 

Chap. IV. 

I'he fame propofition proved from the ancient Correc- 
torium of the Sorbonne, and the Rituals or Puhlick 
Service- Books of the Latin Churches p- ip« 

Chap. V. 

Of St. JeromV Preface to the feven Canonical Epi-- 
files. p. 2 J. 

Chap. VI. 

That the paffage of Si. John was in the old Itatick 
Verfion^ before that of St. Jerom, proved from St.YuX- 
gentius, from Vigilius of Tapfum, and a ConfeJJion of 
Faith drawn up by near four hundred African Bifhops, 

P- 33- 

Chap. VII 

"the teftimonies of St. Eucherius, ^S"^. Cyprian and 
Tertullian/(9r the genuinenefs of this l^esct. p. 41. 

Chap. VIII. 

that this pa [J age of St. John is to he found in the 
Greek Manufcripts of the I'ext of the New Teflament^ 
well as m the Latin, P- f i « 

Chap. IX. 
0/R. StcphenV Manufcripts. p. Co- 

Chap. X. 

Of the obelus and femicircle the paffage of St. John 
is marked with in Stephen^ Edition, p. 6f . 



C H A p. 



The CONTENTS, 

Chap. XI. 

Of the Codex Britannicus or Manufcript /;; England, 
and of the Complutenfian Copy, p. 74, 

C u A P. XIL 

"That this paffage has been quoted in two places in the 
Editions of St. Athanafius'j works, p. jj^ 

Chap. XIII. 

That the Greek Church recei'ves the 'text of the thret 
witnejfes in heaven as authentick, p. 8z; 



PART II. 

Chap. I. 

THE firfi OhjeSiion^ this pajfage is not in the Greek 
Manufcript s^ nor Oriental Ferfions of the New 
"lejtament, p. gg^ 

Chap. II. 

The fecond OhjeSiion ; that the paffage of St, John 
'ivas not known to the Fathers of the Councils of Nice 
andSdxdiQ^, p-PJ. 

Chap. III. 

Tie third OhjeEiion; this pajfage has not been cited 
h the Greek Fathers^ nor by the Latins of the firft 
^^^^- p.pd. 

Chap. 



The CONTENTS. 

Chap. IV. 

fhe fourth Ohje6iion\ fome of the ancient Fathers 
have quoted the fixth and eighth verfes of the fifth chap^ 
ter of St. JohnV Epiiile^ hut havp taken no notice of 
-Ihe/eventh. p. loo. 

Chap. V. 

The fifth Ohje^ion-y the ancient Commentators upon 
St. John's Eptfile have pafs^d over the difputed verfe in 
filence, p. lof. 



ERRATA. 

|Ag. 13. line 18. for a Friar Preacher ^ read of the Cijlernan 
Order, pag. 21. lin. 31. read the firji Sunday after Eafter, 




A 






Critical DiflTertation 

UPON 

The Seventh Verfe of the Fifth Chapter 
of St. John's Firft Epistle, 

There are Three ^ that hear record m 
Heaven^ See. 

PART I. 

Wherein this Paflage is prov'd to be 
St. John's. 

Chap. I. 
How this Taffage firft came to be thought Sup^ 
fofititiom ; of the Trogrefs of that Opinion ; 
with a brief Account of the Reafons where ^ 
on 'tis founded, 

?^55lHOUGH I my felf am fully perfuaded the 
^ ^ ^ do6trine of the moft facred Trinity is true, 
^^^^ I ihould yet think it criminal in the light 
of that adorable Trinity to ufe in its defence 
a Text of Scripture, of whofe genuinenefs I was 
not ftriftly convinc'd. I have learnt from the Book 

B of 



( o 

of ^Jdh^ that God forbids we JJjould talk deceit fully for 
his caufe 3 and 1 have read in ^ Jfaiah and <^ Malachi^ 
that the facrifice of robbery is an abomination to God. 
'Tis not man's part to add to God's word, or to 
put what he never utter'd into the Mouth of an in- 
jpir'd writer: This is a boldnefs, which no pretence 
of gooddefign can ever palliate. But 'tis withal fa- 
crilegious, to ftrike off a pafiage from the (iicred 
books, which, no lefs than the reft, was dictated by 
the Holy Ghoft. The denunciation of God's wrath 
in both thcfe cafes is equally exprcfs and dreadful 
in the ^ i\pocalypfc. 

The pallage, we treat of, has three great advan- 
tages on its lide to convince us of its truth at firll 
view. 

The firft. That the do6trine here taught, fublimc 
as it is, is not peculiar to this place, but occurs in 
many other parts of Scripture. 

The fecond. That the expreilions are all in the 
ftyle of Sr. Jobn^ and have a perfed: connexion with 
what goes before 'em, and follows after 'em. The 
preceding verfes relate to the Perfon of Jefus Chrifi^ 
and his dignity as the Melliah and Son of Gods and 
the words of the 7^^ confirm thofe great truths by 
the depolition of three witnelTes, the Father^ the 
JVord^ and the HolyGhofi. To thefe three witnefTcs 
from heaven are joyn'd in the following verfe three 
witnefles upon earth, the Spirit^ the Water^ and the 
Blood. No words can be more juftly conneded j one 
verfe anfwers to the others there is the fame tefti- 
mony throughout, the fame number of witnefTes, 
a diltin61:ion and oppofition of the places where they 
ares the witnefles of the 8^^^ verfe are in earthy of 
the 7^^^ in heaven. The 8^^^ Verfe by a dift'indion 
fo notify 'd throws us back upon the 7^^, and like 

3 "^oh. xiii. 7. b i^ai, Ixi. 8. c i^dach, i. 13. 

d Rtv, xxii. 18, 19, 

the 



(3 ) 

the ''■ Seraphim in Ifalah's Vifion, they correfpond 
together. This is all plain, and (Irikcs at firft fight. 
The third advantage, in fine, this Text has, is 
that the ancient Church never caft upon it the leall -h" 
fufpicion of Forgery. Where'er it has appeared, it 
has always been look'd on as the Apoltle St. Johns j 
and I challenge all thole, who at this day labour to 
throw it out of his Epiltle, to produce one finglc 
pafiage from the Fathers, where it has been men- ^ 
tion'd with marks of abatement, or the like fenti- 
ments of dilapprobatiori glanc'd at, as have been 
form'd againit it in thefe later Ages. 

The Imputation of impofture lay conceal'd till the 
fjxtecnth Century : Era/mis gave the occafion, per- 
haps undefignedfy, by his firlt Edition of the New 
Teftament in Greek, in the year ifid. This was 
the £ril Edition of the New Teftament in its Ori- 
ginal Language, the world had feen. The induftri- 
ous art of Prmting, found out as 'tis faid at May e nee 
in 1440, had not yet prefented to the publick any 
thing more of the holy Scriptures than the Latin Bi- 
ble, or it may be, than the New Teftament. Cardinal 
Ximcnes indeed had caus'd his famous Impreftion of 
the Polyglot to be made in Spain at Complutum^ or^/- 
cala des Henares^ in the Kingdom o^Caftille in if 14, 
but that Edition came not abroad till many years 
after : So that Erafmus's Greek Teftament, printed 
at Bafel in if 16, was the firft that faw the light i 
which was follow 'd by a fecond, in all refpects like 
the former, put out by him at the fame place in if ip. 
The 7^'^ Verfe of St. John was wanting in both 
thefe Editions : The Complaints hereupon ran high 5 
and there are to be feen amongft Erajmus's works 
the difputes he had upon this head wath Edward 
Ley^ an EngUJJj Divine, and Lopes Stunica a learned 
Spaniard, Erafmus was blam'd by both thefe Gen- 



a l[aiah vi. 3. 

B 2> tlemen 



(4) 

tlcmen for having omitted this Text in his New 
Tertamcnt: He defends himfelf by faying, he found it 
not in the four Manufcripts from which he printed 
his firll Edition, nor in a fifth he had afterward colla- 
ted upon pubUfhing his fecond, three years after his 
firft. 

One might wonder, a man fo curious to fearch 
into all the Libraries of the Low-Countries^ of Ba- 
fil^ and other Places, as Erafmiis was, fhould be able 
to find no greater number of Manufcripts of the 
New Tellament in Greek, did we not know the 
Greek Tongue had then lain negleded for many Ages 
throughout all Europe. The Learning of the Clergy 
of thofe times went no farther than Latin, and as 
the publick fervice was wholly performed in that 
Tongue, 'twas enough for them to have a Latin Bi- 
ble, and to lludy the New Teftament in the fame 
Language. 

The verfe concerning the WitnefTes in Heaven 
being thus omitted in St. John's Epiftle, and Eraf- 
WHS declaring 'twas not in his Manufcripts, join'd to 
the want of it alfo in the Edition o^ Aldus^ or his 
Father-in-Law Azula^ at Venice in i f 1 8 , gave grounds 
to certain men at that time to cry out agamfi: the 
authenticknefs of the Text. George Blandrata^ a P/- 
edmonteze^ and reviver of the Jrian Herefy, which 
had been well nigh extind for feven or eight hun- 
dred yeafs, whatever Sandius is pleas'd to fay in his 
Hiilory oi Arianifm^ took upon him expreflly to de- 
ny this verfe to have been St. John's, Socinus appear- 
ed fome few years after him, and equally concern'd 
with the jirian to rejed a pallage fo flagrantly oppo- 
fite to both their Errors, beheld it in the fame view, 
and affirm'd it to have been inferted into St. John's 
Epiftle by fome one of the perfons, who held the 
dodrine of the Trinity in Unity. 

'Twere to be wifh'd this flrange opinion had 
been confin'd to the Sed of the mw Jrians^ or 

the 



( 5 ) 

the SochilariSy but with gnef we have fccn it pafs 
thofc bounds, and find favour with Tome Chriltians, 
who, willing enough to retain the do<51:rine of the 
Trinity, do yet reject this excellent paffagc, wherein 
that fiicred dodrine is fo clearly exprefs'd. They 
have however the ill fortune to find themfelvcs en- 
roll'd among the fecret adverfaries to that opinion. 
There's no Socinian^ nor even Arian^ has taken fo 
much pains to decry this fam'd verfe, as fome of 
thcfc Chriifian writers have done \ and efpecially 
Mr. Simon^ formerly Prieft of the Oratory, who died 
about two Years ago out of that icarn'd Society. 
He has written in three large Volumes a Critical Hi- 
flory of the New Telbment, and as if his principal 
defign had been to combat this palfage, he brings 
it in upon all occafions, whether to the Purpofe or 
no, in order to give it frefh attacks. A late Englijh 
Author has trod Hep by flcp in the fame path with 
this mighty combatant, in a Diflertation which came 
abroad ^ the laft year, and whereof an Extra6i: has 
been given to the world in the i/^^;^<? Journal > and 
as this Journal has met with a general approbation, 
fo the laid Difcourfe has fallen under the view of no 
fmall part of Mankind. 

The reafons of Mr. Simon^ and others of his fen- 
timents, are, i^^ That this verfe is wanting in ma- 
ny ancient Manufcripts of the Latin Bible. 2. That 
'tis not to be feen in the molt Authentick Greek MSS. 
of the New Teftamcnt. 3. That the Oriental Ver- 
iions, the Syriack^ the Arabick^ the Perfian^ and the 
Copttck have it not. 4. That 'twas not cited by the 
Councils of Nice and Sardica^ in whofe difputes a- 
gainfl the Avians 'twould have been extremely ufe- 
tul. f . That the Ancient Fathers, thofe efpecially 
who wrote at the time Arianifm prevail'd from Eafl 
to Weft^ have not urg'd this Text againft an Herefy, 



Fix. A. D. 1716. 

it 
I 



it Co plpjnly oppofes. 6. That none of the Greek Fa- 
thers have quoted it. 7. That many, who have given 
us the words of tlie (5^^'and 8^^^ verfes of the fame chap- 
ter, have taken no notice of the feventh. 8. That 
the Commentators upon St.J^Z^^^'s Epiftle have nei- 
ther explain'd this verfe, nor rehears'd the words of 
it. Scruples concerning the truth of this paiTage, 
fecm at leall the confequence of thefe Arguments > 
and if every one of 'em taken apart has a fpccious 
appearance of reafon, of what force muil they all 
be compar'd together and when by their near ap- 
proach and conjundion they fhail have communica- 
ted to each other the mifleading flrength of every 
particular. I muft allow, the filfe light here is ve- 
ry glaring, 'tis eafy to be led aiide by it, and to take 
the fhadow of truth for its real fubftance^ but a 
Critick, and a true Divine are not content with ap- 
pearances, they look farther than the furface, they 
learch narrowly into the bottom of things, and found 
'em with all the attention requifire to difcern truth 
from probability j as knowing this the only means 
to avoid miftake. I have endeavour'd to follow the 
fame rule throughout the whole of this diflertation, 
and the Reader will hereby be able to judge, whe- 
ther my opinion is grounded on the precarioufnefs 
of fancy, and efpous'd thro' prejudice of party, as 
thefe late Authors fomewhat too raihly calumniate 
the defenders of this Text of St. John j or rather, 
whether upon fure rcafons I don't maintain its au- 
thenticknefs, and fettle its authority beyond the 
reach of all the artful glolTes of its rejeders. 



Chap, 



(7 ) 

Chap. II. 

That this pciffage of St, John has been al- 
zvays m St. jerom's Tranflatton of the 
Bible. 



TH O' the Greek Manufcripts of the New Tefla- 
ment were found fcarce upon firfl printing the 
Bible, the Latin were very numerous. As 'twas 
ufual to read the holy Scriptures in that language 
only throughout all the JVeftern Churches, the Li- 
braries abounded with this fort of Copies 3 and pri- 
vate Perfons withal, of either piety or fubftance e- 
nough to procure one of 'em, took care to have a 
Manufcript Latin Bible, and fometimes more than 
one, for the ufe of their families. Out of this va- 
riety choice was made of the moil ancient and 
moll correct, from whence to make an impreflion : 
And in the firfl Editions of the Bible we every where 
meet with a curious collation of various Manufcripts, 
with remarks upon the different readings, which 
occur in the mod confiderable Texts. The paf- 
fage of the three witnefTes, like many others, was fub- 
je6l to thefe changes, and thedifagreement of Copies 
varioully diverfify'd. Iji fome were omitted the words, 
in Heaven. Hentenius^ ProfefTor of Divinity at Lou- 
vain^ in his Latin Edition of ifdf, has taken notice 
of five Manufcripts that wanted 'em 5 as alfo of fif- 
teen which had not the lafl claufe of the verfe, tkefe 
three are one : In others, the whole verfe was entire- 
ly left out. Several of thefe Manufcripts are men- 
tion'd by Erafmus^ and three or four others by R.Ste- 

jjhen^ 



^ ^ ^ 

phen^ among divers more ancient, wherein 'tis to be 
read. Dr. Burnet informs us, in the firfl Letter of his 
Travels into Switzerland and Italy^ of a Manufcript 
at Baftl near eight hundred years old, of another 
at Zurich^ and three at Strasbourg^ all wrote about 
eight or nine hundred years ago, which have not 
this Text: But of thefe Manuscripts the number is 
eafily fumm'd up, their fcarcity makes 'em remarka- 
ble> whereas the others, which have the Text, are 
not to be told upon making an Edition, they are al- 
moll infinite. 

Before the invention of Printing, Books were but 
j Copies taken from others, whofe faults, and above 
all whofe omiffions, were eafily tranfmitted from one 
! to another > and unlefs the Copids had equal exa6l- 
i nefs and capacity to collate the Manufcript they had 
{ tranfcrib'd with other Manufcripts, 'twas morally 
impoffible the faults fhould not remain in the Co- 
pies, and new ones be added withal. Examples of 
like omiffions with this of the feventh verfe are 
\ fo frequent, and in pafiages too of the higheft im- 
portance, that no Man who has any knowledge of 
Manufcripts can be ignorant of 'em. 

Am id ft the many great advantages the wonderful 
art of Printing brought to the world, we have this 
among the reft, that by corredbing the differences 
in Manufcript Books the Scriptures are fix'd and the 
Text fettled 5 that 'tis no longer poffible to fwerve 
in the lead from it, but the Publick mud be adver- 
tis'd of the variation. In Manufcript Copies the 
cafe was far otherwife : The Tranfcribers were ufu- 
ally hir'd ; and thefe, the fooner to gain their re- 
ward, made more had than was fitting, and fo left 
out a multitude of pafi^ages which fhould have been 
inferted. Negligence and unexaftnefs were in- 
termix'd with their hade, and from thence num- 
berlefs faults, numberlefs omiffions, the Publick 
knew nothing of, were with the Copy tranfmitted 

to 



to Poftcrity. May not then the few Manufcripts in 
which the veife of St. John is wanting in whole or 
in part, be this fort of faulty Copies, at firil bought 
up by private pcrfons, kept hid from the Eyes of the 
publick, and not 'till many ages after depofited in 
Libraries, where their antiquity is at this day their 
grcateft worth, which conceals it felf underneath the 
covert of eight or nine hundred years? We can nd 
more rely upon the Copies which have not this pafTage 
to the prejudice of that vail body of Manufcripts col- 
lected from all parts of Europe^ which have it entire, 
and from whofe uniform agreement have been m.adc, 
as I've already obferv'd, the moll ancient Editions of 
St. 7t'^^^>'^'s Verfion, than upon Copies mutilated or 
defe6live. Mr. S'mon acknowledges this prodigious ( 
uniformity in the Manufcripts wrote at leaft within / 
fix hundred years; 'Tis obfervable^ ^ f\ys he, tbat\ 
well nigh all the Manufcripts not aho've fix hundred | 
years old agree in this^ that they have the verfe in \ 
difpute. But 'twould have been no eafy matter fof ' 
him, well skill'd as he was in evading difficulties, to 
Ihev/ whence it came to pals, the Manufcripts for the 
lall fix hundred years have fo univerfally given us 
this paflage, provided they had difagreed before, and 
the verfe had been found in a few of 'em only, and 
thofe the moll incorre6t. Should we fuppofe this 
exa6l agreement not older than fix hundred years, he 
could draw thence no great advantage: but in the 
fourth Chapter we fhall fee the reafons of this Uni- 
formity, and Mr. Simon (hall furniili us with one part 
of our Arguments. 

Among the Manilfcripts from which R. Stephen 
made his firil Editions of the vulgar Latin in if 24, 
and I f 18, there are fome he calls mir^e vetujiatis^ Ma- 
nufcripts of a wonderful antiquity j and this, when 
he could not carry 'em higher than fix or feven hun- 



* Hijl. des Verjlons. ch. 9. 

C dred 



( 10 ) 

dred years : Co that, without doubt, the lead we can 
now'adign 'em will amount to near nine hundred. 
Dr. Burnet relates, that one oF the four Manulcripts 
he faw at Strasbourg^ which wanted but a imall mat- 
ter of the age of Charles the Great, and confequent- 
ly were nine hundred years old, had the verfe wc 
fpeak of: he adds moreover, he faw many other ve- 
ry ancient Manufcripts at Geneva^ Venice and Florence^ 
which had all this paflage. But why ftould we feek 
for teftimonies elfewhere, when we have 'em in Mr. 
Simons own Books, who has been, perhaps, the moft 
zealous Antagonifl: this verfe ever had before him ? 
He tells us in his ^Critical Hiilory of the NewTefla- 
ment, and his ^ Hiftory of the Tranflations, that he read 
this verfe in the Emperor Lotharius's Bible, which was 
wrote in the timeof C/:7^r/^; the Great, or copied upon 
the revife that Emperor had caus'd to be made of the 
Bible, towards the clofe of the eighth Century. Here 
then is one of the mofl ancient Manufcripts of St./V- 
roms Verfion, we have extant 3 for Father le Long^ a 
learned Benedidine, who has preferv'd throughout 
the Charader of a Man of truth and fincerity, declares 
we have no Manufcript of the vulgar Latin older than 
the Abbot Tbeodulphus's^ ^ which he (ays was wrote 
in the year 790, /. e, in the time oC Charles the Great. 
With what face after this fhall any Man of Letters prc- 
fume to affirm, this paflage is not found in the oldcfL 
Manufcripts of the Latin Bible, fince from Mr Simons 
confcflion 'tis feen in a Manufcript as old as the age 
of that Emperor ? How apt is prejudice to lead into 
error 1 The moft convincing proofs by its means ap- 
pear to men of clear underllanding perplex'd and ob- 
Icure. 



a Pa'T. in. ^ chap. 9. ^ Biblioth, Sacr. T. i. cap.^^Jf.i, 

Chap, 



( XX 



:^m :;^^^ ^^ ct.n^ji^§0vi^^>j-T.\;^ 



Chap. III. 

T/je fame propofitton^ that this vcrfe of 
St. John has been always in St. Jerom"^ 
Trandation, prov'cl by the quotations 
Tvh'icb have been made of it from age 
to age^ up to the feventh Century. 

OUorations of a Text of Scripture in the Writings 
of the Ancients are one of the moll convincing 
proofs we can have, that the Text was then in their 
Bibles, and withal, that 'tw^as generally recciv'd as 
genuine and not fuppofititious. Thefe writings were 
no fingle Manufcripts, latent, and unknown beyond 
the compafs of a private family, but were JNlanu- 
fcripts fent abroad into the world, and whereof man- 
kind might all judge, whether iheir citations were 
true or falfe. li' the Text quoted met with no con- 
tradiction, if in many following ages, and in coun- 
tries far didant from each other, it has been frequent- 
ly cited by writers of judgment > what but the real 
Scripture could flow from their pen, and approve it 
felf to the world ? 

There are few Texts in Holy Writ thefe confide- 
rations can be applied to with more juilice, than the 
Text in quelHon. From the fourteenth Century up- 
wards to the fjventh, it has fall'n with the Latin Ver- 
fion und^r the view of the moll: diltinguilli'd writers, 
and been thence copied out into their works. Which 
citations are not private and obfcure, fuch as have de- 
noted the want of particular attention j but have been 
brought by grave Divines, who in reheariing this 

C z pall^ige 



ra(Tiigc have either form'd their remarks and cora- 
ment upon it, or produced it as a formal proof of the 
Trinity : Councils have withal in their Seilions argur 
ed from it againil: the Errors of the Times they fat 
in ', And what more can reafonably be requir'd ? 

In the beginning of the fourteenth Century Mc/:?^?- 
las de Lyva^ one of the moft learned men of his Age, 
and aProfefTor of Divinity at P-^m with much reputa- 
tion, wrote a Commentary upon the Holy Scripture, 
which was highly eileem'dj the palTage of St. John is 
feen with the reft of his Epiftle, beautifully explain'd, 
without any infinuation, that 'twas fufpefted of for- 
gery. 

In the thirteenth Century S. fhomas put out a 
Comment upon the fame Epiftle-, the difputed Text 
is to this day in its place, and the learnM Interpreter 
has Withal expounded it. 

Not long before, the h-m^d^Diirandits Bifliop of 
Mende^ had brought it into his Rationale, and plac'd 
it after the three Witnefles of the eighth Verlc. The 
fame tranfpofition, by the way, may be obferv'd in 
other writers of greater antiquity than this Bifhop, 
and in fome Manufcripts of the Bible. Dr. Burnet 
has taken notice of feveral in the Letter I've above 
mcntion'd ; and there is now at Utrecht in the Chap- 
ter of St. Mary's a Bible in Cix great Volumes, written 
upon large and very fine Vellum, in which the two 
verfes are tranfpos'd in this manner. The fame thing 
has happen'd to other paflages. The 30^^' and 31^^ 
verfes of the 21^^ Chapter o^ ^i, Matthew in fome 
Manufcripts have a like tranfpofition ; and many o- 
ther Inftances arc given by Dr. Mills in his NewTe- 
flament. Now, a tranfcriber might fall into this mi- 
llake thro' inadvertency ^ and another as negligent as 
himfeU follow him m the wrong placing this paOage; 
Or the Copycr, imagining the words of the 7^1^ \c\{q 
better connc61:td, as is not unhkely, with the words 
of the ninth, than of the eighth, might take upon 

him 



. ^ ^3 ) 

him to change their order, and in the variation have o~ 
thers follow after his Manufcripti and thus may the 
tranfpofition have taken place from the eighth Cen- 
tury, where 'tis firft difcern'd in the Decretal Epillles 
of Iftdorus Mercatur^ down to the fifteenth, in which 
the Bible of St. Maries was wrote. This in all like- 
lihood is the Tail, was copied 5 for 'twas not begun, 
'till many years a*"tcr Printing was found out, nor ^'' 
nifh'd, as is manifeil from the date of the lafl Volume, 
'till the year 1476. About fifteen years before which 
date, 'tis probable this valuable Manufcript was firft 
entcrM on, for at the clofe of the Book we find the 
fecond Volume was compleated in 1467. and the date 
of the firft is torn off. But to return to the cita- 
tions. 

In the year iiif . five hundred years from the 7^^ 
Century, Pope Innocent the 111^. held at Rome in the 
Church of St. ^o/^/^i^Lateran one of the moll nume- 
rous Councils, was ever fcen. 'Twas composed, ^fays 
M. DuPin^ of four hundred and twelve Bifhops in 
Perfon 5 of near eight hundred Abbats or Priors > be- 
fides an abundance of Deputies from abfent Pre- 
lates and Chapters. The Greek Patriarchs oi Con- 
Jiantinopk and Jerujaiem^ who fpokc Latin, were there 
prefentj the Patriarch of >f/^//W^, being himfelffick, 
lent a Biftiop in his flead 3 and the Patriarch of y//^.v- 
andria deputed a Deacon. The Abbat Joachim^ a 
Friar Preacher, an Italian and Founder of the Con- 
gregation of Tlora^ had gain'd in the twelfth Centu- 
ry a vail reputation : but with other particular opini- 
ons he had advanc'd unorthodox Sentiments concern- 
ing the Trinity. The Book this Joachim had writ- 
ten, fome years before againft P. Lombard was exa- 
min'd by the Council, and his notions of the Trinity 
condemn'd : And among the arguments in the A6^s of 
the Council urg'd to defend that important Dodlrinc, 

I Bihl, Ecclef. Tom. 10. p, 103. 

the 



pafHige of the three witnefTes in heaven is alledgM, as 
a Text decifive in the point. It muft then have been 
generally in the Copies of the Latin Bible > and if at 
that time 'twas omitted in any private Manufcripts, 
no more regard was paid to them, than v/e ufually 
fhew to the fliults of an impreilion, or theomiffions 
in a printed Bible -, a pallage left out is no whit lefs 
true upon that account. 

But to go higher. I come now to Lombard^ Bi- 
fhop of P^m, and iirnam'd for his extenfive know- 
ledge M^/^r ^/ /Z?^ iS'^-?'//<?;2<:^j > he flourifli'd in the ii^^^ 
Century : let us hear how he fpeaks in the firil Book 
of hisfentences, at the clofe of his fccond Diilin6ti- 
on; That the Father and the Son are one^ fays he, 72ot 
hy confufion ofPerfons^ hut by Unity of Nature^ 6V. John 
hath taught us in his Canonical Epifile^ fay'^^g-i Inhere 
are three which hear record in hea'ven^ the Father-, the 
PFord^ and the Flojy Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. If 
this celebrated Preacher's Bible was now extant in any 
Library, what efteem iliou'd we not have for it ? what 
deference would not be paid to its Authority ? But as 
to this pafHige, we have it, for we fee it copied from 
this Bible in Lombards citation. 

In the fame Age, Rupert Abbat of Duyts-, near Co- 
logne^ Gompofed aTra6l with this Title, Of the glorifi- 
cation of the 'trinity 3 and the Paflage of St- John is 
therein found. 

Towards the end of the 11^^ Century, S. Bernard 
has quoted this Text in many of liis Writings 5 but 
of him I fhall have occafion to fpeak more largely in 
^he fequel of this difcourfe. 

In the 10^^^ Century, the Sorhonne revis'd the Ma- 
nufcripts of the Latin Bible, and in their review pre- 
ferv'd entire the feventh verfe of St. John ; but this 
by the way : in the following Chapter 1 ihall fiy more 
upon this head. 

In the ninth Century came abroad the Book entitu- 
led, GloJ/a ordinaria^ drawn up by IValafrid Strabo^ 

and 



( IJ ) 

and met with a general approbation. There has heen^ 
lays Mr. Si7non in his Hillory of the Commentaries 
upon the New Tettament, 710 Comment on Holy Scrip- 
turc of equal authority with this expofttion from the 
time it firjl appeared in the ninth Century, Now, m 
this Work, fo greatly eileem'd, fo hi ;hly reverenc'd, 
the Text of the three Witnefles in heaven occuis. and 
not in the Epiille only, but in the Com-ncnt alio, ve- 
ry excellently interpreted. 

In the beginning of this Century, in the year 814. 
died the Emperor Charles the Great, who a few yeai*s 
before, towards the clofe of the preceding Age, had / 
caus'd the Latin Bibles to be revis'd. As they were \ 
all in Manufcript, upon the review they were found ! 
full of faults, fo 'much had the negligence or igno*' 
ranee of tranfcribers in feveral places deform'd St-Je- 
ro/n's Verfion. The pious and generous Emperor 
commits the execution of this great defign to many 
Iciirned men, and places at then* head Alcuinus^ by 
nation an Englip man, whom before he had attach 'd 
to his perfon, out of regard to the high elleem he 
had conceiv'd of his knowledge. Thefe learned Men, 
thus chofen by a Prince who was himfelf well skill'd 
m Letters, with all the care a work of that nature re- 
quir'd, fet themfelves to corre6i: the Manufcripts of 
the Vulgar Latin > and we muil; fuppofe they had at 
hand in this affliir a great number of the befl: and 
moll ancient. 'Twas by no means difficult at tliat 
time to procure 'em, for there were then no other 
than written Bibles : and 'tis eafy to believe that be- 
ing employ'd in this revife by fuch an Emperor as 
Chmles the Great, they had every thing of the kind 
which was moll: extraordinary, in the Emperor's pri- 
vate lludy, or in all the Libraries of Germany^ France 
and Italy: the bufinefs they were upon deferv'd it 
well. 

There is kept at Rome^ in the Abby of Faux-ceUes^ 
a^ a treafure of exquifite value, {\i\s Cardinal Baronius^ 

a Copy 



( i^ ) 

a Copy of the Bible thus corrcflied, written by At- 
cuinus's own hand, and prefented to Charles the Great. 
This ineftimable Copy, adds the fame Cardinal, was 
put into the Corrector's hands, who by order of Ur- 
ban the Eighth in the beginning of the lall Age, re- 
vised the Vulgar Bible. And we have already feen Mr. 
Simons acknowledgment that the padage o^ Si. John 
was in Charles the Great's Bible, from whence it was 
copied into the Bible of the Emperor Lotharius^ and 
other Manufcripts taken from Charles the Great's 
Exemplar. 

Mr. Simon finding himfelf prefs'd by the weight 
of fo llrenuous an Argument, tho' unwilling to own 
he was overcome, has yet fcarce refrain'd from the 
allowance in thefe words •, ^ 'l^is probable^ the addi- 
tion of the teftimony of the three perfons might even 
then be read in fome Copies of St. John'5 Epifile^ or at 
leaft in fome Latin Writers, But wou'd iVIr. Simon^ 
if he had liv'd in thefe days, and Charles the Great 
had done him the honour to employ him in correct- 
ing the Vulgar Bibles, would he, I fay, upon the 
credit of a fmall number of Manufcripts, or of fome 
few Latin Authors, have added to the Bible a paflTige, 
like this o£ St. John? Mr Simon would be thought 
too great a Critick, to fuffer this abufe, or to follow 
fuch particular writers, as were led away by uncertain 
Copies to cite the Text of the three witnefles in op- 
pofition to the generality of Manufcripts, and the 
whole Body of Divines, who had been utterly igno- 
rant of the paflage. Good fenfe will inform us, what 
'tis reafonable to believe of Mr. Simon in fuch a 
cafe, that Alcuinus^ who was a man of prodigious 
learning and abilities, the wife and l^^niai Alcuinus^ 
and the other Divines, who in concert with hinl 
corrected the Bible, were no lefs careful not to infert 
a Text of this importance, if they had not found it 

a jiiji^ Critic, dti Texte du N. Tefiam. c^. 18, 

in 



( '7 ) 

in all, or well nigh all, the Manufcrlpts they had 
confjlted, nnd the Church in their time had not ac- 
knowledg'd it as part of the infpir'd writings. Nor 
is it to be luppos'd they collated only the Latin Ma- 
nufcrlpts, but had recourfe alfo to the Original Greek 
of the New Teftament j without application to this 
means they would oft have been unable to determine 
what reading they ought to follow. Jkuinus was 
learned in the Greek Tongue, and fo without doubt 
were his Collegues in the revife. 

Before this flimous revife ^ in the year 798. were 
forg'd the falfe Decretals attributed to the firil Popes. 
As they were favourable in many refpc^cls to the am- 
bitious pretenfions of the Roman See, the Writers of 
later Ages who have ftudied to raife the Papal Autho- 
rity, have not been wanting to cite 'em, as the real 
EpifUcs of the Popes, whofe Names they bear. But 
'tis long (ince thefe Letters have been own'd fuppo- 
iititious in the bofom of the Church of Rome : Cardi- 
nal Baromiis^ F. Lahhe^ Balnfius^ Du Pin and others 
have pafs'd this judgment upon 'em : as among the 
Proteltants Mornai^ Rainold and Dallle have done, 
and David Blondel yet more fully than the reft, who 
has wrote upon the Subjed a Treatife of vafl learning, 
and general eftecm throughout the world. *Tis 
commonly believ'd thefe Epiltles were wrote by //?- 
dortis Mercator^ who liv'd about the middle of the 
eighth Century > 'xnd. Baronlm obferves, as does alfo 
Blonde]^ that 'tis probable they were wrote about the 
year jSf. or a little after. In one of thefe Letters, 
the firii attributed to Pope Hyginus^ there is an in- 
finite number of quotations from Scripture, and a- 
mong thefe the feventh and eighth verfes o^ Si. John's 
firil Epiftlci with this difference, that what is now 
the eighth is plac'd before the feventh : and 'tis on 
this account 1 have faid, I know no Author, or Ma- 
nufcript more ancient, that has the verfes tranfpos'd. 

» Mill. Proleg. I ©2.8. 

D Above 



( »8) 

Above forty years before the rcvife in 798. and the 
time the Decretal Epillles in all likelihood were forg'd, 
jlmbrofe Aiithpcrt^ Abbat oiSt. Vincent^ in the king- 
dom of Naples^ wrote a Comment upon the Apoca* 
lypfe, extant in the 13th Volume of the Bihlioth. 
Max'mi. Patrum^ in which the words of the fevcnth 
verfe of St. John are brought to explain the fifth verfe 
of the firll chapter of the Revelations. 

St. Jerom's Verfion was not received in the Weflern 
Churches 'till the feventh Century, and 'tis little more 
than nine hundred years ^ ^ fiys Mr. Simon^ fince M^^r iters 
ha've in fiich fort followed that Verfion^ as entirely to 
negleU the Latin Bible^ which before "was us'd in the 
Church. And thus have we got as high as the time 
the Vulgar Latin gain'd the advantage, and was pre- 
fer'd to the old Italick Verfion > but from this time 
the pafiage oiSvJohn has been found in his Epillle, 
and quoted in the Writings of Divines. And yet tho' 
we had not been furnilh'd with the citations I have 
produc'd, the revife that was made of the Bible in 
the eighth Century can leave no caufe to fufpccl that 
it was not in the Bibles of the feventh, fixth and fifth 
Centuries, unlefs thro' pure willfulnefs and obfiinacy 
againlt the genuinenefs of this Text, we are refolv'd 
to believe, the Corre61:ors employed by Charles the 
Great confulted only Modern Manufcripts, and as I 
may fay, jull wet from the Copier's hands, v/ithouc 
cither [cnfe, judgment, or inclination to look into 
Manufcripts more ancient. If they had had Copies but 
of two or three hundred years {landing, which had 
been a fmall thing, their Manufcripts mull have 
reach'd up to the fifth Century, the Ag^ St. Jerom 
died in. But they ought to have confulted at once 
both the Copies pf St. Jerom's Bible, which had then 
been receiv'd for one or two hundred years 5 and the 

a Hiji. Cnt. des verf. du N. Tefi, f/^ 7, 8, cr 9. ct- M. DuPin 
Oijjert, Prelwi, I. i,ch, 7. Sect. i. 

Manu- 



( 19) 

Minufcripts of the old Italick, which from the fe. 
cond to the fevcnth Century had been us'd by all 
the Latin Churches in Europe and j^frick. 

From this continued feries of quotations, and the 
remarks I have made upon 'em, I think, it may 
plainly appear, the Text of the three witnefles in 
Heaven has ahvays been in the Vulgar Latin Bible. 
I fliall next apply my fclf to a different fort of proofs 
upon the fame Subjed. 

Chap. IV. 

The fame propoftiion prov'd from the an^ 
c'lent Corredtorium of the Sorbonne, 
arid the Rituals or PuhJick Service* 
Books of the Latin Churches. 

WE owe this obligation to the deceased Mr. *9i- 
mon^ that he more than once fupplies us, 
tho' undefignedly, with arms againft himfelf. Thus 
God oft fuffers the truth to receive additional ftrength 
from the perfons, who mofb oppofe it. 'Tis to him 
we're endcbted for the knowledge of a certain Manu- 
fcript laid up for many Ages and preferv'd with great 
care in the Sorbonne^ entitul'd Corre^orium Biblia. 
Mr. Simon^ who has read and critically examined it, 
informs us, this work was composed upon the Holy 
Scripture about the tenth Century, in order to cor- 
reft the faults, which might have crept into the La- 
tin Bibles fince the revife of Charles the Great > for, 
by the way, fuch reviews were frequently neceflary, 
as Mr. Dii Pin has obferv'd in the firft Book, chap. 7. 
of his Preliminary Diflertations upon the Bible : i'hefe 

D z Corre- 



( lO ) 

Correftoria Biblicer, ^ fays Mr. Simon^ may ferxe in the 
place of Mantifcripts^ and are of f^reat life in judging of. 
the true readings of the Latin Bibles. He adds, that 
the Author of the S or hnne Corrediorium has obferv'd 
in his Note upon thefe words, There are three^ which 
bear record in heaven^ i^c. " That St. Jerom afHrms 
*' fome Latin Copies (in the CorreSioriurn tliro' mi- 
flake was put, Greek^ inilead of, Latin^ whereup- 
on Mr. Si-^'-ion rries out mightily againil it, tho' 
with reafon iiaic enough) were faulty in this place. 
" But 'tis in no wife furprizing, adds he, the paflage of 
'^ St.John^ ^Axh the Preface to the feven Canonical 
*' RpiiUes, fho'ild find a place in this Correoiorium^ 
'' which was not compil'd 'till near the tenth Cen- 
" tury. For at that time (M\\ Simon goes on) 'tis 
" certain few of the Latin Copies wanted either the 
'^ Preface or the paflage, which had been inferted 
'^ from the time of Charles the Great." 

Mr. Si?nun here again yields to the evidence of truth, 
after he has done all he can to avoid it, and as much 
as poflible kick'd againfr the pricks : this pczj/age^ crys 
he, was inferted into the Bibles in the time <?/ Charles 
the Great. Thefe words thus extravagantly fpoken, 
without any manner of proof, or the leail fiiadow of 
reafon, as is manifeil from what we have faid in the 
foregoing chapter, give us to underdand, that from 
the time o^ Charles the Great the Latin Bibles have 
all had this paflage, except, it may be, a few parti- 
cular Copies. 

■ Here then one of the mofl: learned Bodies in Europe^ 
which about the tenth Century revis'd the Manu- 
fcripts, and could not fail of confulting the moil Kn- 
cicnt, and comparing 'cm with the Greek, after 
much pains in the enquiry and laborious Study, has 
left the Verfe of the three Witnefles in Heaven in St. 
John's Epiitle. What can be alledg'd againft an au- 

* Hiji. Grit, des Verficns dtt N. T. oh. 9. 

thority 



( tO 

thority Co convincing ? Nothing fare that's reafona- 
ble : Mr. Sr^^on owns this Corrctlorium may hold the 
place of Manufcripts j but alas ! that's little, he Ihould 
have faid, of the bell and mole correct Manufcripts. 

I come now to another Argument, too fure alio 
to bear a reply: and this I take from the Rituals or 
Publick Service-Books of the Latin Churches. 

Mr. S'rmon^ who happens oft to be taken in his 
own nets, very juftly obferves in the third Chapter 
of his Hiftory of the Tranilations of the New Tefta- 
mcnt, that private Verfions have nothing in common 
hvith the Verfion us'd in the publick fervice j he means, 
that the latter only is authoritative, and of fufficienc 
Warrant in palling judgment upon a Text of Holy 
Scripture. Thither indeed I would bring him, buc 
'tis a pleafure to fee him prevent me by furrendering 
himfclf. 

The Rituals or Publick Service-books are collec- 
tions of feveral portions of Scripture, let apart for 
the Office of particular days in the Churchy and the 
Texts which are read in them are fo well known to 
the publick, that moil of the Congregation have 'em 
all by heart > infomuch, that nothing can be either 
added or omitted, but the whole world muft per- 
ceive it, and withal be fcandaliz'd at the inferting a 
pailage before unheard of, or not generally met with 
in their Bibles j efpecially if the Text be fo remarka- 
ble, as is that of the three Witnefles in Heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Spirit. But this palTage 
oCSt.'John was in all the Ancient Latin Service-Books, 
as at prefent, in the Office of Trinity- Sunday, and 
the firil Sunday after. As on that day 'twas ufual 
folemnly to admit to Baptifm, with the words of 
Baptifmal Inftitution were read thefe words of St. 
Johns Epiftle, There are three^ which bear record in 
heave f^ the Father^ the JVord^ 6cc. This Durandus^ 
Bifhop of Mende^ informs us of, in the fixth Book, 
Chap. pj. of his Rationale of Divme Offices, who 

adds 



( ^o 

ndds moreover, that 'twas purfuant to the directions 
in the Or do Romanus^ and what this Order was we 
iliall have occafion to fee by and by. 

S. Bernard^ who Uv'd above an hundred years be- 
fore the Bifhop, has made divers Sermons upon this 
Feilival, and never omitted to mention the paflage of 
St. Johri^ as being in a fpecial manner the Text of the 
day. He has given it entire in a Sermon upon the 
O&aveof Eaiterj in another immediately following, 
and in the fixteenth oih\s Parvt Sermones. 

The Or do Ro?nanus^ whereof we are now to fpeak, 
is a Book of great Antiquity -, Dr. Cave^ and before 
him the learned Uf,oer^ believes it to have been drawn 
up in the year 730. Its title is, line Roman Order 
concerning the Offices throughout the whole year : now 
this Book fo much to be refpe6i:ed in the Latin Church, 
has thefe words, Upon the 05laves of Eafter^ are read 
the AUs of the Jpoftles and the [even Canonical Epijlles^ 
or the Revelation of i?/. John, '//// the OUaves of Whit- 
funtide. Which, in fhort, muft be underilood of 
the particular places that bear m.oil relation to the 
folemnity of the day, and not of the whole Books of 
the A6ls, and the fevcn Epillles and the Revelation: 
But we have learnt fi'om St. Bernard^ and the Bifhop 
of Mende^ that the words of the feventh verfe of St. 
John were read in the Office of thefe Fellivals, pur- 
suant to the Roman Order: The whole Church there- 
fore acknowledg'd the paflage of St. John to be part 
of the infpir'd Writings before Mr. Simon's pretended 
addition in the Age of Charles the Great. This Ar- 
gument will admit of no reply : it amounts to a de- 
monftration. 



Chap. 



( ^3 ) 






C H A p. V. 

Of Sl ^JGYom's Preface to the [even Cano- 
nic al Ep'tflks. 



IN this Preflice St. Jerom complains of certain Latin 
Tranflatois, who in their Verfions of the New 
Teilamcnt had omitted the feventh vc\{q, of the fifth 
Chapter of St. John's Epiil:le3 and for this caufe he 
blames 'cm as unfaithful Interpreters^ who turning a- 
fide from the true Religion had attempted to throw 
out of their Tranflation this Text, which is (faith he) 
one chief Support of the Catholic k Faith. 

This Preface had pafs'd without contradiction for 
St. Jerom's to our own time, with the other Prefaces 
he had composM upon Holy Scripture. The Wri- 
ters, who in the fixteenth Century made the firfl at- 
tacks upon the genuinenefs of St. John's Text, obje- 
61:cd nothing againfl it: but in the following Ages 
men grew more daring, and this Preface has itood the 
charge of divers Criticks in the lafl, who have treat- 
ed it as fuppofititious. Mr. Simon is one of the mod 
zealous in oppofing its authenticknefs, and is carri- 
ed fo far by his heat, as oft to entangle himfelf in 
greater difficulties, than he would throw upon the 
Preface. 

Yet when all's done, 'tis of little importance, whe- 
ther we afcribe it to Sl.Jerom^ or fome other Perfon j 
for ihould we not be able to prove it his, 'twould 
yet be no lefs true, that the palTage has been always 
in his Bibles 1 have given of this full proof already. 

Howe- 



( M ) 

However, it inufl- be ownM, the Preface is very 
ancient, and has held its place in the Vulgar Bibles 
for more than eight hundred years; Mr. Simon is of 
opinion, 'twas inierted in Charles the Great's time, by 
the Correctors he employ'd in reviewing the jVJanu- 
fcripts. This is a good Hep gain'd, from which I 
ihall draw a new Argument, and that no bad one, in 
favour of St. 7^/:7/^/'s pafiage. For after all, if thefe 
learn'd Correftors complain'd in the mention'd Pre- 
face of a faulty unfaithfulncfs in fome Tranilators for 
omitting this Text in their Tranllations, 'twas indif- 
putably ni St. Jerom'^ Bible j for how could they o- 
therwife have accus'd the Tranfiators of unfaithful- 
ncfs in rejedting it ? this is asvclcar as daylight. 

Tho' then, without prejudice to the caufe I main- 
tain, 1 might give up to the morofe humour of thefe 
late Criticks the Preface they labour to reprefent as 
forg'd ; I fhall yet defend it againlf their imputations, 
for this only reafon, becaufe 1 am fenfible they are ve- 
ry unjull, 

yix.Simon^ who is often pleas'd to vouch contra- 
didions, has told us in his Critical Hiflory of the 
New Teftament, Chap. 1 8. that 'tis triie^ this Proem 
is found 'with St. Jerom'j other Prefaces upon the Bible 
in the Latin Copies^ that are not aho've fix hundred years 
old. But as if he had faid too much, he farther adds, 
that 'tis not fo perfe^ly in thofe^ zvhich ivere wrote fe- 
i;en or eight hundred years ago^ hut only in fome few of 
"em. F, Martianay has abundantly anfwer'd this Ar- 
gument in his Prolegomena upon the Epiille, in the 
iirft Vol. of the Bcncdicline Edition of St. Jerom's 
Works, and has fhewn by divers citations of the mofl 
ancient Manufcripts, this Preface is fo far from being 
conflantly in the Manufcripts not above fix hundred 
years old, and feldom in the others j that on the con- 
trary, 'tis more feldom found in the Manufcripts on 
this fide fix hundred years, and generally in the more 
ancient. Dr. Burnet fays alfo in his firlt Letter, that 

he 



he faw this Preface in a Bible at Geneva at Icaft 
of feven hundred years Handing j in another at Ba- 
Jil faid to be above eight hundred years old ; in a 
third of the fame antiquity at Zurich 5 and in three 
others at Strasbourg^ wrote in the time of Charles th« 
Great. But why Ihould I prefs Mr. Simon with fo- 
reign tellimonics ? he'll be witnefs againft himfelf, ^ 
you'll have but a little Patience to hear him fpeak. 

He tells us in -^ feveral places of his Critical Hilto- 
ry of the New Telfament, that the Preface to the 
feven Canonical Epillles is in the Bible of Charles the 
Bald, copied from that q{ Charles the Great hisGrand- 
fiUher : and in the ninth Chapter of his Hiftory of 
the Tranllations, treating of the valuable and curious 
Corre^oriwm of the Sorhonne^ of which I have fpoken 
above, he lays, at that time "'tis certain few of the La^ 
tin Copies wanted this Preface^ for it had been inferted 
in them from the time of Charles the Great. I'm ama- 
zed fo great a man as Mr. Simon ihould poffibly fall 
into fo plain a contradidion. He (inks yet deeper 
and deeper, pofitively affirming, as one of the rare 
difcoveries he has fpread throughout his Critical 
Works, that 'twas fome one of the Corredors em» 
ploy'd by Charles the Great in revifing the Bible, who 
compil'd this Preface to the feven Epiftles. 'tis pro- 
bable^ ^ he fays, the ColleEior of the Books of the FuU 
gar Latin Bible ^ not finding in St, Jerom a particular 
Preface upon the feven Canonical Epiftles^ composed one 
himfelf in imitation of that Fathers Style^ whofe expref* 
fions he has follow' d^ and withal added the Name of Eu* 
llochium. 

What an admirable man is Mr. Simon ? He has an 
imagination always ready to bear him thro' whatever 
he defires. Would he have the Proem to the fevea 
Canonical Epiftles none of 3c» Jerom's ? Streight it 



» Hiji. dn Texte p. 108. v des Verfions p. loj, *» Hijl, Crih 
du Texte dn $i, T. ch, i§. 



( ^M 

is hardly found in any Bibles above fix hundred years 
old. Wou'd he have it of longer date than fix hun- 
dred years? There are a few Copies, wherein it was 
infertcd about eight or nine h-jndred yt-ars ago, in the 
Age of Charles tnc Great. Would he find out its O- 
rigiaal? His imagination leads him to the clofe of the 
eighth Cc.itury, there to dcfcry one of the Corre- 
ctors of the Bible compiling this Proem according 
to the Taft, and in the Style of Sr. Jerom, Mr Si- 
inon's imagmaei jn (hould not have ceas'd, 'till it had 
difcover'd the nauie of this Corrector, and given us 
his f'i'acc among the reftjfor we know there were many 
in number. 



PiBoribus atq-^ Poetis 



§uidlibet audcndi femper fuit d:rina potefias. 

We may in this affair well joyn Mr. Simon to Pain- 
ters and Poets, for he has taken t!ic fame privilege of 
devifing fictions, and ranging 'em in their refpcctive 
orders. But let us now come to fomewhat more fo- 
lid than conje6ture, and fee what reafons are urg'd 
to prove this Preface is not the work of that ancient 
Father: I fhall endeavour to omit none of 'em. 

'Tis fii ft alledg'd, that fome Manufcripts of the 
Bible, which have the Preface that charges unfaith- 
fulnefs upon the Tranllations not having S^.. John's 
pafTagc, want the pafTage it felf in the Text of the 
Epiftic-, But ''t^.vouid be ridiculous^ ^ fays Mr. Simon, 
;/ this Preface was St, Jeroms, the PaJJdge of St. John 
jhould be wanting in his Bible^ as well as in that of the 
Ttanflators, 

'Twould have hztn indeed ridiculous, or rather 
extremely furpriziitg, if thefe Copies, which have 
the Preface and not the paflage, had been written by 
St. Jerom's own hand, or revis'd by him 3 But 'tis 



^ Hiji. Crlt. des Verjiom dii N. T. ch ^. 

too 



r 17 ) 

too vifible a millake, to urge that Manufcripts copi- 
ed three or four hundied years after St. Jerom's death, 
may ferve for a proof that he was not Author of the 
Preface, for this reafon, becaufe the feventh verf:- is 
not in the Copies the Preface is. L.et us once again 
hear IVIonf Simon^ and he'll take off the objection 
himibif. This^ fays he^ is the fault of T^ranjcrihers'^ 
for as their whole 'Talent lay in copying old Manufcripts^ 
they conftder'd not the manifefl difagrcement there was 
betwixt the Text of their Copies^ and this Preface, And 
befides, they might not have wrote altogether and at 
the fame time the Preface and Chapter, in which 
this paflagc is j the Preface is put before the Epiftle 
of St. James^ betwixt which place and the difputed 
Text well nigh four entire EpiiHes are interpos'd. So 
that 'tis not fo much to be wonder'd at, they fhould 
have fojgot this verfe had been taken notice of in 
the Preface > Tranfcribers have not always fo good 
an excufe for committing the like faults. And thus 
the Objedion, on what fide foever you take it, is 
very weak and inconclufive. 

But 'tis farther argu'd, that the name of St. Je^ 
rem is not prefix'd to this Preface in all Manufcripts. 
And indeed in fome particular ones it is anonymous j 
but this is no peculiar circum fiance, nor of any weight 
to fliew it is not that Fathers. The Preface upon 
the Pfalms is his indifputably, tho' without his name 
in the Manufcript o{ Carcafjonne^ reputed above eight 
hundred years old: F.Martianay^ who thinks not the 
Preface genuine, yet ^ rejeds this Argument, and 
obfervcs, thePrci-ace upon the Books o'l Efdras^ which 
is certainly Si.Jerom's^ has withal no name in one of 
the moft ancient Manufcripts in the French King's 
Library. 

Mr. Simon again without reafon objects againft the 
Preface,that the pretended Compiler,whom he fufpeds 



• Hisron. Oper. Bened't^. T. 1. p. 546. 

E z to 



( t8 ) 

to be its Author, has affedcdly imitated St. Jerom's 
Style, even to the infertion of the name ^^/Euftochinmj 
the pious Virgin, ^i.Jerom fo highly eftecm'd. But on 
what grounds docs he maintain this to be an imitation 
of St. Jerom^ rather than the genius and writing of 
St. Jerom himfelF? If the writer of this Proem was a 
feign'd Pcrfon, who deijgn'd to put ofl^his own piece 
for Si. Jeroni's^ he certainly was mader of but little 
addrefs in complaining of the unfaithful tranflations, 
which had been fent abroad in his timej for no one 
can produce the leaft proof, that new Latin Verfions 
were ever made in the Age 'tis pretended this Preface 
wascompos'd: Whereas 'tis plain from Si. Auguflin^ 
St. yerom's contemporary, that in their days divers 
had undertaken to tranllate the New Tellament > and 
'tis without doubt, the complaint in the Preface re- 
fpe^led fome one of thefe Vcrfionsj which is no in- 
contlderable Argument in favour of our opinion, that 
this Preface is St. Jerom's genuine Work. 

'Tis urg'd fiirther, that were this St. Jerom's^ 'tis 
inconceivable he fhould fet {o high a value on the 
difpofition of the Canonical Epillles, and throvv'-mg 
back St. James's into the firll place, as to aicribe it 
to the efpccial ailiftance of God. But the words and 
fenfe of St. jerom are here mifunderiioodj for his 
paflage and meaning relate not to the bare ordering 
the Epillles, but to the pains he had taken, when by 
dilpoling 'em as they ought to be, he had brought 
them to a review, as before he had done the Gofpels : 
Sicut E'vafigcliftas dudum ad I'eritatis lineam correximns y 
it a has propria or dine .^ Deo dante.^ reddidimus. The 
exprelTion, Deo dante^ regards the former word ror- 
reximus^ as well as the latter, reddidimus j and com- 
prehends both the order they were difpos'd in and 
their corredion, for otherwife the inllance drawn 
from the Gofpels would be of no ufe in this affair. 

As to what is faid in the Preface, that the Latins 
had not obferv'd the fame order with the Greeks in 

their 



( ^9 ) 

their difpofition of the feven Epiftles, having put 
St. Peter's before St. J^mes's^ F. Martianay will have 
it, that this can't be St. Jerom's Criticifm, bccaufe it 
had no place in his tinae. But the learned Bcnedi^ine 
is here niiilaken, luice 'tis certain that in the Age of 
St. Jero?n fome among the Latins had fo ordered the 
Epiftks, as may be feen in Rufimis upon the Creed, 
and St. yiHgufiirfs fecond Book de Dobliind Chnfliand^ 
Chap. 8. 

'i'hc lame F. Martianay is of opinion, this Preface 
was not con:ipos'd 'till feveral Ages after St. Jercm^ 
by reafon of the word Cafionical^ v/hich is there gi- 
ven to the Epiftles inllead of CathoUck their ancient 
title, for he fays they were not nam'd Cano?iicari\\\ 
after the llxth Century : But this is another miftake. 
Jiinilius^ who flourifli'd about the middle of the fixth 
Century, calls 'em Canonical^ as by a name ufually af- 
crib'd to 'em; qute Canonica^ fays he, appellant ar ', 
hereby denoting the name was of fome ftanding. 
Befides St. Augusiln has faid the fame thing of St. 
Jude\ Epiille, in his fifteenth book de clvitate Dei^ 
cap. 13. And 1 find in a note o^ Erafmus's upon 
St. Jerom's treatife of Ecclefiaftical Writers, that this 
ancient Father had alfo flyl'd the Epiftles of St. Peter 
and St. Jude Canonical. The words oi Erafmus are 
thefe; Inflead of Canonical^ I have follcw^d the tran- 
fiation ^/ Sophronius, and put CathoUck. Erafmus 
therefore alter'd St. Jerom's Text by the Verfion of 
Sophronius^ who had tranflated into Greek the Tra6t 
de Scriptoribm Ecclefiaflicis, But Erafmus in fo do- 
ing not only aflum'd too great a Hbertyj he did not 
enough attend to the Subje6l he was upon : for he 
Ihould have confider'd, that Sophronius writing in 
Greek might, and in fome manner ought, to fubflitute 
the word CathoUck in the place of Canonical^ which 
would have appear'd altogether new upon the occa- 
fion, and foreign to the Greek Idiom -, for the Greeks 
purfuant to the Council of Laodicca^ which had fo 

nam'd 



( 30 } ^ 

namM 'em, gave no other title to the feven Epidles, 
than that o^Catholick. Mr. Simon agrees here entire- 
ly with us : The Greeks^ ^ fays he, have ftyVd the fe- 
ven Epiftles Cathoiick j tho' the VVeflern Churches feera 
to h.rce unherfally appropruted to them the name Ca- 
nonical : and from hence he proceeds to give fome 
reafons for his opinion. 

However he is p^eas'd to produce another Argu- 
ment againd the Preface, that fcarce deferves a re- 
hearfal > luhlch is^ that this Preface was not in Bede'i 
Bihle^ who liv'd before Charles the Great. But where 
is it he faw this Bible o^ Bede's? Or, in what part 
of his works has that Fenerable Dodor, as he is llyl'd, 
taken notice the Preface was not in his Bible? Thefe 
are mere inventions. Mr. Simon goes upon this, that 
Bede having commented on the feven Epillles would 
not have fail'd to mention the Preface, had it been 
extant in his time. But this is an extravagant way 
of reafoning, and unworthy fo finifh'd a Critick as 
he wasj for he could not be ignorant that Bede had 
wrote many other Commentaries upon the Holy 
Scripture, without having faid the leail word con- 
cerning the Prefaces prefix'd to 'em, which were un- 
doubtedly Si.Jerom's 3 for example, upon the Books 
oi Mofes^ oi Samuel^ of Kings ^ the Proverbs, St. Mat- 
thew^ and fome others. 

The moil plauflble reafon Mr. Simon has urg'd to 
prove this Preface none oi St. Jerom's^ is taken from 
that Father's not mentioning it in the Catalogue of 
his Prefaces. But it might be, it was not then com- 
pos'd : and what more clearly refolves the difficulty, 
St. Jerom has not fet down in the fame Catalogue ma- 
ny other Prefaces, which he wrote 5 for inflance, 
thofe upon the Pfalms, the Books of the Maccabees, 
theEpitlles of St. P^/^/, and the Adls of the Apoftles. 



a Hiji. Crii.dH N. T, £h. i^. 

This 



( 3^ } 

This laft, Mr. Simon denies to be St. Jercm's^ but 
is iuily refuted by F. Martianay : to which I add, that 
the lame Be^e^ whole Silence was lately produc'd as 
a good Argument againfl the Preface, has exprefHy 
own'd that to be St. JerGm's^ which is fet before the 
Acts in the Latin Bibles, and cited from it fonie lines 
in his Comment upon the Acls. This is another kind 
of proof than Mr. iS'/;^;^A/s, which maintains the Pre- 
face upon the feven Epiltlcs is not St. Jerom's^ becaufe 
Bcde has no where fpoke of it. 

Tiie anonymous Author of the EngUjl) Diflertation 
againft the genuinenefs of St. John's Text has done 
honour to the late Dr. Mills for his having own'd the 
Preface to be none of St. Jerom's : but 'tis an interelVd 
regard this namelefs writer, and others before hinij 
have paid the Do61:or, with defign to draw an advan- 
tage from his acknowledgment. I refped: his memo- 
ry, I honour his learning, and am very thankful for 
the almofl ineftimable prefent he made to the publick 
in his excellent and incomparable Edition of the New 
Teliament 5 but I muft be allow'd to fay, he has oft 
err'd thro' want of attention, or a defedl in memo- 
ry: 'tis human i the late Mr. Kufter has made this 
obfervation upon divers pafTages in his Prolegomena, 
and as to Dr. Af/V/^'s fentiment upon the Preface to 
the feven Canonical Epiftles, the Arguments he brings 
for it are fo very weak, that were one from thence 
to pafs a judgment upon the great learning of that ex- 
traordinary man, we could not but abate of the high 
eftcem he otherwife fo juftly merits. 

He charges the Author of this Proem v;ith falihood 
in taxing the TranflatorSjhe mentions, of unfaithfulnefs 
for not having turn'd into Latin the feventh verfe of 
St. Jo/jn-, becaufe, fays he, this verfe had never been 
in the Greek before St. Jerom's time^ for no Greek 
Father before him had ever quoted it. I fhall ihew 
hereafter, that conclufions can't be drawn againlt the 
Authenticknefs of St. J(?/;«'s Text from the want of 

citati- 



( 3^ ) 

citations in the Greek Fathers. But he/ides, Dr. 
Mills fhould have confider'd, tho' this Preface had 
been made later than the Age of St.Jcyoiti^ and not 
'till about the eighth or ninth Century, the verfe wg 
treat of mull at leaft have been extant in the Greek 
Copies of that time: But more of this by and by. 

Another great mi Hake in Dr. Mills is, that he has 
imagined the Preface had in view the old Iralick Ver- 
iion in the place, where 'tis faid, the paflage of St. 
John had not been tranilatcd by the Latin jnterpre- 
lers: Sure that great man did not think what he 
faid, and his eyes and underllanding were in different 
places : I ihall fay no more at prefent. 

A third argument he urges is, that if the Preface 
was St. Jcroni's^ the feventh verfe would have been 
found in all the ancient Copies of his Bible. I have 
alreadv anfwer'd this Objedioni and 'twas eafy for 
Dr. Mills to have given an anfwer to himfelf, that is 
very natural, and leaves behind it no manner of diffi- 
culty. 

I have been very large, perhaps larger than the bu- 
finefs required, in vindicating the Preface to the Ca- 
nonical Epiftles j but as I have obferv'd mofl of the 
rejeders of St. John's pafTage form to themfelves a 
notion, that to remove the teilimony of St. Jerom in 
its favour in a Preface, that bears his name, is to take 
away its chief fupport j I thought it excufable to be 
thus full upon the point, that 1 might leave none of 
the arguments urg'd againll it, untouched or unexa- 
mined. 



Chap, 



(33) 

C H A P. VI. 

That the pa ([age ofSt.^o\\x\ was tn the old 
Itahck yerjion^ before that /^/cSV. Jerom, 
prov'd from St, Fulgentius, from Vigi- 
lius of Tapfum, and a confeffion of 
faith drawn uD by near four hundred 
African Biftoops. 

THO' the Greek Tongue had fprcad it fclF thro' 
all the JVefl^ and become as it were an univer- 
Tal language in thoie Countries, upon firil: preaching 
the Gofpel there, the Latin was yet more generally 
known, and admitted as the common language not 
only in //^/jK) but in many other nations withal. For 
thiscauie, in order to make the New Teilament more 
eaiy to be read and under flood by all forts of people^ 
it was tranOated into Latin in the firil or fecond Cen-' 
tury. The perfons concern'd in fo important an af-* 
fair are unknown to us j this barely is come to our 
knowled/^e, that their Vcrdon was much approv'd 
of, andimmediately recelv'd in all the ^Vejlern Church- 
es, and focn after in the African. As this Tranflarioa 
was the firil that appear'd, and in all probability was 
compil'd in Italy ^ it has been dillinguiih'd from others 
fince made, by the title o^ antlqua^ and Italica^ '?j-\dL 
fomctlmes by the word Vulgata^ or Common^ becaufe 
as I have above obferv'd, it was the vulgar and ordi- 
nary Verfion us'd in all the Latin Churches. 

As in thofe days tranfcribing Copies was the only 
means to multiply Books for publick ufe, or the be- 
nefit of private pcrlbnsj 'tis ealy to iuppofe, that 
many faults muft of courfe creep into 'em. Here an 
©million j there one word put for another) elfew^here 

F pallages 



(34) 

paHages difplac'd and fet out of order: at fomc times 
the words or one Evangelift added to another's relati- 
on of the [iime Fa61:5 as tho' they had been there left 
our j all thefe fliults and abundance of others of a dif- 
ferent nature, increaling with time, made it very de- 
firable that an able hand fhould be fet to work in cor- 
rccling 'em. There was no man more capable to ex- 
ecute this great defign than St. Jerom. He had al- 
ready amended the Latin Verfion of the Old Tefta- 
itienr, with a fuccefs worthy the vafl knowledge he 
had in the Hebrew^ its Original language; and in 
Greek^ the language of the fam'd Tranflation by the 
leventy Interpreters. Pope Damafus at the fame time 
earneiily prefs'd him, tho' already wearied with that 
great work, and difpirited by the injuries the envy 
of the place had drawn upon him, to review and cor- 
red the MSS. of the New Teftament. The pious 
and learned Rechife yields to his entreaties, and Book 
by Book, after much pains and time, he at length 
perfecled his review, and correded the Vulgar Bible 
then in ufe. 

However, he proceeded in fuch manner, as to cafl: out 
only the moll obvious miilakes 5 he perpetually follow- 
ed his copy without diminution or addition and never 
fupplied an omiHion upon conjedure without authority 
from the Original Gr^f/^; and tothisweowethefolemn 
proteftation at the clofe of his Catalogue of Ecclefi- 
aflical Writers, that in his Tranflation of the New 
Teftament he had kept clofe to the Greek Original, 
and to the Hehrezv in his Veriion of the Old : Novum 
"Te ft amentum Gracce fidei reddidi : Fetus juxta Hebraic 
cam tranftuU. 

Since then the verfe of the witneiTes in heaven was in 
St. Jerom's correded Copy ;' tis indubitable, that it was 
alfo extant in the oldLatin Tranflation ; 'twould other- 
wife have been an addition in his Bible 5 and com- 
jplaints hereupon could not but have arofe, fincc 
by mere changing one iingle word for another, he 

was 



was occafion'd no fmall trouble j as we learn from 

'"B^fwe" have no need of this indirca proof, tho' 
clea. and evident, to fhew the verfe ot S. John ^v . 
.n the Old Italick Bible before the review and cor- 
reftion of S. Jcrom : I fhall produce dnxft arguments 
IS favour, againft >^hich 'tis m^poffib le to n^ake 

reply tha canies with it the flradow ot rcafon 
iFuhcntius, B.ftop of Rufpe m Jfnck, l,v d m 
the begmmng of the <S"> Century at =i t™e the 
Italick VerfioT. was only read in the Churches Th.s 
pious B.lbop, with the other ^ncans of '^ ^§0 
fuffcr'd much from the Jrian Kmgs^ nraju,:Mul 
caus'd him to appear at Carthage to anfwer tne Ob- 
jeftions thofe Hereticks had drawn , up «g|l'"ft ';= 
Eternity of the Son of God, and h,s equality vni 
the Father We all fee, the utmoil exaftnefs and 
precaution in chufing Texts of Scripture was req:,..- 
fite in S. Fulgentius, and above all ^\^ m^'f''°\^,l 
none whofe genuinenefs might be fofpeaed. We 
have extant among his works the anfwers to thefe 
Qiieftions, and we there Hnd alledg'd m P™.ot °f 5>^e 
S^n's Confabftantiality with the Father this Pafl age 
of S.John, There are three, that bare record ,n hea- 
ven, he Father, the Word, and the Holy G„ofi, and 
thefe three are one. This verfe is withal quoted m 
a traa of the fame Fulgentius concerning the runity, 
which he dedicates to Mix. 

A little before him flourifh'd alfo m Jfrtck and in 
the fame Province VigHius, Bifhop of Tap^fhm, who 
in the f'h Century wrote many excellent pieces againlt 
diverfe Herefies, but prefix'd his name to none o. 
'em, fave a treatife againft the £«0'f*/«wi for the 
jlriam not taking part with thofe Herencks, the^- 
frkan Writers had nothing to fear on that fide. But 

in his controverfies with the Ariam he walk d not m 

"~~' » Du Pin ttmkr the ArtUle of S, Fulgentius. 



( 3M 

tlie fame fleps-, he here conceal'd his name, that 
without ncceflity he might not be expos'd to the 
perfccution they had rais'd. So that his writings 
came al)ror.d under divers feign'd names j fometimes 
he pafs'd for Idacius Claras^ a former Bifhop in Por' 
tugal-^ fometimes for S. Athanafius \ and fometimes 
he t.:)ok upon him the perfon of S. Augufiine^ who 
died a few years before at Hippo. In thefe works he 
vigorouDy oppofes Arianifm,, and makes ufe of the 
celebrated paflage concerning the three witnefles in 
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, 
He quotes it twice in his treatife ^ concerning the 
Trinity, and urges it wirhal in his difpute againft Fa^ 
rimadus.^ an Aricin Heretick, 

About the fame time, in the year 484. was aflem- 
bled at Carthage a numerous Council of Bifhops, fum- 
mon'd thither by King Hmerick^ an Avian and great 
Perfecutor. He had order'd by his Edi6t of May 10. 
483. all the Bifliops in his Dominions to appear at 
Carthage upon the firil of February.^ there to defend, 
are the words of the Edi6]:, by the Scriptures (a very 
remarkable expreflion in this place) the Confubfban^ 
tiality of the Son with the Father in a publick dif- 
pute againft the Arian Bifhops. This Edid was fig- 
nificd to the pious and prudent Bifhop of Carthage 
Eugenius^ who feeing well the difpute was intended 
only to circumvent and opprefs the Orthodox undej- 
a fpecious pretext, took all poflible pains to procure 
the Edi6i: to be repeal'd. But finding no fuccefs in 
his defign, he judg'd it convenient a writing fhould 
be drawn up by certain Bifhops of the greatefl abili- 
ties in form of a Confeflion of Faith, to prefent the 
Emperor with, in cafe the diforder and opprefLon he 
forelavv on the part of the Arians fliouki prevent th^ 
Orthodox from maintaining their opinion with free- 
dom. This momentous inllrument was compiPd by 



" Llh. I. cr i/^. 7. 

four 



( 37) 

four Bifhops in that interval of time the Emperor had 
aflign'd^ and we can't doubt, it was read and ex- 
amin'd, both by Eugenius^ the then Primate of jifri- 
ca^ and by all the learned, prudent and zealous advo- 
cates of the Chriftian Faith aflcmblcd at Carthage, 
Upon the appointed day near 400 Bifhops came to- 
gether, from all the Provinces of J f rick and many 
Ifles (mult arum infularum) fays Vi^or Vitenfts^ who 
flouriin'd at that time, and who wrote this Hidory, 
and has pkc'd upon record the entire Confedion of 
Faith, we now treat of. Under thefe Ifles were 
principally comprehended Majorca and Minorca on 
the Coafts of Spain^ and Corfica with Sardinia bor- 
dering upon Italy-i as being all dependent on the 
Vandal King then reigning in Africk. 

From among this great number of Bifhops ten were 
chofen to maintain the difpute, and at their head 
the Holy Prelate Eugenius. When they were come 
to the place, where the Conference was to be held, 
they found there an Arian Bifhop, one Cyrila^ who 
taking upon him the title of Patriarch, had proudly 
feated himfclf on a kind of throne, environ'd with 
Soldiers. The Orthodox amaz'd at this Spectacle 
faw well how the matter would go> and no fooner 
had they begun to fpeak, and enter their Proteita- 
tions, but feditious outcries follow'd, which ended 
in blows upon the Orthodox. The only way they 
I had in this cafe to take was to prefent the King's 
I Commiilioners with the Confellion of Faith they had 
I drawn up ready, and wherein were produc'd many 
Texts of Scripture in defence of the Orthodox do- 
ctrine purfuant to King Hunerick's Edicl, who had 
refus'd to admit the Plea of Tradition. 

Of all thefe pafTages thus inferted into the Confef- 
fion of Faith St. John's verfe was more particu- \ 
jlarly infiifed on than the reft 5 fo decifive was it \ 
I thought by the African Qhmchcs in proving the do- 
ftrine of the Trinity. But^ fay they, that it may yet 



( 38 ) 

appear more clear than day lights that the Godhead of 
the Holy Ghoft is one with the Godhead of the Father 
and the Son^ fee it prov'd by the teftimony of the Evan- 
gelift tS'^. John, who writes thus^ 'There are three^ which 
bear record in heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the 
Holy Ghofl y and thefe three are one. Do's the Apoflle 
fay^ thefe three are not difiinci from each other ^ except 
in the cafe of equality^ or fome other great difference^ 
that difiinguifJoes 'em ? In no wife 5 hut he fays^ thefe 
three are one only and the fame thing. Hi tres imum 
lunt. 

Thefe Bifliops would truly have wanted, fhall I 
fay, difcretion or honefty, had they made ufe in this 
affair of a Text not generally received as Holy Scri- 
pture. Could they have invented a more ready means 
to draw upon 'em the infults of the Arians^ who ta- 
king advantage from this error would not have fail'd 
to cry out againfl; the Orthodox to Hunerick as Men 
who had urg'd falfe records inftead of the genuine 
Texts of Scripture the King's Edi6t had requir'd? 
Men were the fame then they are now, and have we 
at this day, I (ay not, hundreds of Bifhops, who by 
concert would employ a forg'd Text in the Faith's 
defence 5 but is there one lingle Bifhop, only one 
Man of Letters, who has the lead Honour or Con- 
fcience, who would thus rifque his reputation, and 
proftitute his religion? Can we imagine the Arians 
were lefs diligent then to examine the arguments of 
the Orthodox, than the moft zealous oppofers of our 
Holy Myfleries are now? No furelyj and the forge- 
ry of the Paflage in queilion had been too palpable to 
have efcap'd the Eyes of the Arians^ who, had they 
been able to read only, would have wanted nothing far- 
ther to difcover the cheat. 

Nor would it have been enough to juflify the Or-^ 
thodox for inferting it into their Confeffion of Faith, 
to fay, they had found it in fome of their own Co- 
pies. At that time, as before and finccj particular 

Mss; 



( 39 ) 

MSS. might eafily be incorred, but the Faith of the 
Church was not to be built on faulty and inauthoii- 
tative MSS. > this was to be grounded on Copies rc- 
ceiv'd in the Publick fervice, and to which molt o- 
thers were generally conform'd. Nor weie thefe 
Copies of two days or a few years (landing -, 'tis to 
form notions at wil), to fuppofe the Bibles in the ^- 
frican Bilhops PoOefiion in Himerick\ Reign had a 
padage fo clTential to the Chrifiian Faith as this of 
St. John's Epiftlc, that was wanting in the Bibles of 
their PredecelTors. This confequence (o juft, fo na- 
tural, brings us back to St. Auguftine^ who had flou- 
rifh'd with fuch reputation in Africk^ and ended his 
days at Hippo^ when Gcnferick^ Hiinerick''s Father, laid 
Siege to that Town. 'Tis urg'd againfl us, as we 
fliali fee hereafter, that St. Auguftine has no where 
quoted this paiTage, which he ought to have done, 
if it had fall'n under his view, or he had thought it 
to be St. John's^ and feen it in that Apoftle's EpifHe. 
For my part, I maintain this paHage either was in 
St. Augufiine's Bible, or in cafe it Vv^as wanting, his 
Bible was defective > fince it mui1: neceilarily have 
been extant in the Bibles of his time, or infertcd into 
the Bibles o^ tht ylfrkan Churches after his deaths 
the laft proportion is abfard and incredible, and there- 
fore the former true and certain. 

If not, the difputed Text in that fmall interval 
muft have run thro' all the Provinces of Africk^ and 
the Iflands of Spa'm and Italy, all Libraries mull have 
been open to receive it 3 and it mufl have either crept 
between the lines of the MSS. or been wrote in the 
Margin of St. John's Epillle j how otherwife could 
the Bifhops in Hunerick's days have copied it thence 
into their ConfefTion of Faith ? But this is not all, 
it muft with the fame eafe have penetrated into the 
private Clofets of the Avians^ and finding there the 
MSS. they had brought from Spain into Africk^ when 
they accompanied King Gsnferk thither, this Text 

concerning 



( 40 ) 

concerning the Trinity muft have forc'd its way into 
them, to the utter fhame and confufion of j^riamfm. 
Without this fuppofal the Jrians would not have re- 
cciv'd it, nor admitted for a Text of Scripture a quo- 
tation the Orthodox Bifhops had drawn from their 
own Bibles. Thefe confequences are all ridiculous, 
but as they naturally flow from the opinion I oppofe, 
that the paflage of St. John is forg'd , they evidently 
make out the contrary concluiion, that it was re- 
ceiv'd as genuine in Africk by both the Orthodox and 
jirians. 

Mr. Smon has attempted to evade the Force of 
this Argument, by faying, ^ BiJJjop Vidor liv'd an 
Age after St. Jerom, and was the fir ft who brought the 
paffage into his fVorks. But why does the learned, the 
judicious Mr. Simon fo little confult his own reputa- 
tion by advancing fa6ls fo notorioufly falfe ? Firll, he 
has err'd in his Chronology, in making Fi6for an hun- 
dred years later than St. Jerom^ for they both liv'd m 
the fame Age. St. Jerom died in the year 410. and 
Fi^or was Bifhop at leail in 483. and it may be, a- 
bove ten years before, for the year of his inrtaiment 
into his Biiboprick is uncertain) but 'tis fure, this 
was done before the conference at Carthage^ and in 
thofe Days no one could be made a Bifhop under the 
Age of 30 years. 

Secondly^ Fi6ior cannot properly be faid to have 
brought this palTage into one of his works > he has on- 
ly copied and given us at large a writing which others 
had drawn up, wherein this pafiage was produced. As 
then this work was none of Fi5ior's , for whofe it is 
taken j fo is it not true, that Fi5lor firfl alledg'd the 
paflage: I fliall fhew the contrary in the next Chap* 
tcr. But to come to another weighty anfwer of Mr» 
Simon's. 



^» Hiji, Grit, dft Texte dtt N. J\ ch, i8. 

fhit 



( 41 ) 

This great nnmhcr of BiJIjops ^ (fays he) amounts to 
only Eugenius. Whence learns he this? Why, from 
Gennadi us ^ who in his Catalo^^iie of fajnous men fays^ 
Eugenius with the confcnt of all the Bifhops in Africa^ 
Mauritania^ Sardinia^ and C(?r/7^^ com pil'd this Con- 
fellion of Faith. But ViHor^ who had been an Eye- 
witnefs of all that pafs'd, tells us, the Confeflion was 
drawn up by fourBifhops, whofe names he gives us 
with the titles of their Bifhopricks, nor does he make 
Eugenius one of the number. But fuppofe Eugenius 
had alone compos'd it, would it be lefs true, that the 
pafTage had been urg'd in the manner we have feen? 
Was ever reafoning fo bad? Yes, what follows is 
worfe. 

"the other Bifljops^ adds hcj [uhfcriFd the Confejjiort 
ivithout critically examining the pajfages of Holy Scrips 
ture quoted in it. We mult own, Mr. Simon gives us 
a fine Idea of the African Bifhops, who in their time 
were the greateft lights of the Epifcopate. Eugenius^ 
in his account, was a man of no confcience j or a 
mere giddy-brain'd fellow, to attempt fo grofs an im- 
pofition, firll upon hiaCollegues and the whole Cler- 
gy, and next upon the Arian BifhopSj by a fuppofi- 
titious Text, whofe forgery might fo eaiily have been 
difcover'd. Well, but {vjs'b^lv. Simon ^ they were 
not able Criticks> i. e. they were not Mr. Simon\'^ 
they were good harmlefs People, who would fet their 
hands to a paper of the utmoil: importance, without 
having read it all over, or at beft but curforily^ and 
not with confidcration , uiicapable to difcern they 
fubfcrib'd a paflage, by which the ConfeiHon was 
fupported more than by any other, without their ha-^ 
ving feen it in St. John'^ Epiftle. Reafon crys outy 
whether one will or no, againft an imputation lb vile, 
fo abfurd, fo rallily advanc'd. 

' ^ I Di/I'erf. fnr les MSS. /, 89, 

G The 



( 40 

The anonymous Author of the Englijh Diflertati- 
on appears fomewhat afhamM of Mr. Simon in this 
point, whom otherwife he has highly magnify'd 
throughout the whole of the difputcj for leaving 
here his idle fancies, ^ he contents himfelf with fay- 
ing, the teftimony of Fi^er ought not to be of much 
weight, becaufe in his Hiftory he has intermix'd a 
recital of certain miracles, that have more an appear- 
ance of fable than an air of truth. This is not a 
place to reafon upon miracles: Fi^ior is not the only 
perfon, who has recited 'em > MarcelUnus Comes and 
many other Writers, living at the fame time, have 
fpoken of 'em, as well as Fi5lor. But whether in the 
cafe alledg'd he has exaggerated the matter or nor, 
what is this to the Contellion of Faith fubfcrib'd by 
the y//r/V^;^ Bilhops, or wherein is FiSlory who has gi- 
ven it us entire, for this caufe a lefs faithful Hillorian ? 
But I'll detain my Reader no longer. This great 
great number of Biihops are, to fpeak in the lan- 
guage of the Apoftle St. Paul<^ a cloud of witnejjes ^ 
every one of 'em comes, as I may fay, with his Bible 
in his hand ready to prefent us with St.Jobn^s pafTage 
to read. 



Chap. VII. 

The teflimonies of Sl Eucherius, St. Cy- 
prian, and TertuUian for the genuine- 
nefs of this Text. 

I Know not how it efcap'd Dr. Mills ^ but he has 
faid in his 152,0^^ Prolegomenon to the New Te- 

l, Differ t. />. 18. 

ftament, 



( 43 ) 

itament, that only the African Copies had this pajfage. 
We have however leen it in the moft ancient Wri- 
ters of France^ Italy, and Germany .^ who have all ci- 
ted it from St. Jerom\ Bible j and obferv'd that 'twas 
no Icfs extant in the Bibles of the old Italick Verfion, 
in ufe throughout Spain and Italy, than in the Copies 
o^ Africk: i\nd befides, we fhall fee it quoted in a 
treatife of St. Eucherius de formulis fpiritualibus, who 
was Bifhop oi Lyons, and St. Jeronis Contemporary. 

St. Jerom, as we have noted, died in the year 420. 
About the fame time Eucherius'' s fame began to ad- 
vance in the Monaftery o^ Lerins, now call'd the IJle 
of St, Margerice., on the coafts of Prcvence. Before 
the year 418. %s Mr. du Pin in the article of St. 
Eucherius, his reputation forc'd him thence into the 
neighbouring Provinces > but within a while he re- 
turn'd to Lerins, and was foon after confecrated Bi- 
shop of Lyons. The time he liv'd in, with the high 
efteem he had in the Church, can't but fet off to ad- 
vantage the quotation he has made of St. John'^ paf- 
fage : ^ As to the trinity, fays he, we read in St. JohnV 
Epijlle : There are three, which hear record in Heaven, 
the Father, the IVord, and the Holy Ghoft -, and there 
are three, that bear witnefs in earth , the Spirit , the 
water, and the blood. This is decifive in the point. 
Dr. Mills did not recolle(5V, that himfelf had taken 
notice of this quotation by St. Eucherius in his 958^^ 
Prolegomenon 'y the greateft Men are fubjecl to like 
flips in memory. 

St. Cyprian, who flourifli'd in Africk, about the 
middle of the third Century, has quoted the fame 
paflage in a Difcourfe againft the Novatian Schifmj 
entitul'd De fimplicitate Pnelatorum, or De unitate 
Ecclefne, in thefe words : Our Lord hath /aid, I and 
my Father are one j and again, it is written of the Fa- 
ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghojl, that thefe three are 



» Eticher. ch. 11. Jf ^, 

G z one. 



( 44 ) 

one. Here he vifibly alludes to the paflage In St. John's 
Epiltle". 

The Jrian Sandius would infinuate in his Eccle- 
fiaflical Hiilory, and the Jppendix to that Hiftory, 
that we can't much depend on this paflage of St. 
Cyprian^ becaufe the Tra61: from whence it is taken 
has been alter'd in divers places, where the ancient 
MSS. do not agree : But is that circumftance pecu- 
liar to this difcourfe? There are few MSS. of the 
nncient Writings, that agree in all particulars 5 tho' 
the variations be generally of the leall importance. 
However it be as to this treatife, 'tis very fure, we 
have no MSS. at prefent, which want the words I 
have given above, and that's enough for us. 

Mr. Simon^ and all others who have been prefs'd 
hard with this quotation from St. Cyprian^ have found 
out another way to evade its force. They (ay, the 
Holy Martyr had in view the words of the eighth 
verfe, the fpirit^ the water ^ and the bloody and thefe 
three are one-y which St. Augufline has interpreted 
myftically of the three perfons in the Godhead, and 
St. Eucherius informs us were by fomc men fo ex- 
plain'd. And to give more weight to their anfwcr 
fhey add, that Facundus Bifhop o{ Hermiane in 4frick^ 
not only has expounded 'em in this manner, but alfo 
faid that St. Cyprian had refpedt to them in the paf- 
fage above produced. This is the refuge, the only 
refuge our modern Criticks fly to, who will have St. 
John's paflage fuppofititious 3 but this hold is not de- 
fen Able. 

Firllj It IS a mere fallacy, and prejudice lurks be- 
hind it. The fallacy conliils in this, that the point 
in difpute is taken for granted The quellion is, 
whether in St. Johns Lpilrle there is a paflage, 
where the three perfons in the Trinity are expreifly 
nam'd, and taught to be one and the fame thing: 
The affirmative is maintained by us, by them the ne- 
gative. Down ip St. Cyprian, v/e have found them 

in 



\ 



(45 ) 

in St. John^ and all ihcJ/rican Biihops, St. Cyprian\ 
SucceiTor in the See o^ Cart barge not excepted, have 
feen the ilime words in the Holy ApolHes Epillle. 
Not one of the three perfons in the Godhead is 
nam'd in the eighth verfe, the word Spirit only oc- 
curs without the Epithet oF Holy, which is adjoin- 
ed to it by St. Cyprian and in the icventh vcrfc of St. 
Jobn-y only the word Spirit is equivocal, for it has 
many fignifications, and its meaning always depends 
upon the particular fubjed treated of, where 'tis men- 
tion'd. Why then fliould not the expreffion /i^/Z^^r, 
Son^ and Holy Gboft refpc61: the feventh verfc, where 
the fame words occur and the fame perfons are de- 
noted, rather than tbe fpirit^ tbe ^jjater^ and blood in 
the eighth verfe, which are three words quite diffe- 
rent, but that 'tis fuppos'd the feventh verfe was not 
in St. John's Epillle, lince without this fuppofition 
we mull own St. Cyprian had the feventh verfe in his 
Eye? Now this is what I call aflillacy. We leave the 
natural ideas of the terms, and have rccourfe to ideas 
foreign and forc'd, and then fay this was the fenfe 
and meaning of St. Cyprian. Thefe Gcntlem.en, ac 
lead many of 'em, are Philofophers and Divines. I 
beg of 'em to confider, whether ever it came into 
their heads, or they ever obferv'd it in men of the 
fame learning v/ith themfelves, to leave the proper 
and litteral iignification of terms to explain 'em by 
other words, which have not litterally the fame fig- 
nification. Metaphorical expreflions indeed muft be 
taken in a different fenfe from the letter of the 
phrafe j for example, the feven ears of corn in Pba- 
raob's dream fignified feven years 5 by a vineyard in 
Jfaiab was denoted the Houfe o^ Ifrael], -.mdjcfus 
Cbrift by a vine in St. Jobn-, and fo in a thouiand 
other cafes: but that we lliould explain feven years 
of feven ears of corn j or the Houfe o[ Jjrael of -a. 
vineyard) or Jefus Chrifi of a vine, in the Texts 
where neither ears of corn, nor a vine, nor a vine- 
yard 



f 4^ 

yard have any concern, but the proper terms fland 
all alone, is what I'm perfuaded no iniknce can 
be brought to ihew \ tor rcafon univerfally crys 
out againlt it, where prejudice has not fliut mens 
eyes : The application forms it felf. 

When St. Augufiine interpreted the fprit ^ the 
water^ and the blood in the eighth verfe of the three 
perfons in the Trinity, he took notice his interpre- 
tation was myftick and allegorical > confult but his 
own words in his treatife agamd Maximin : There is 
nothing like this in St. Cyprian^ he quotes the three 
perfons of the Godhead by their ordinary names. 

Facundus^ an hundred years after him, interprets ' 
'tis true, of the three perfons the three words in the 
eighth verfe, but he gives us alfo to underfland, that 
his comment is but by way of figniHcation, /. e. he 
takes 'em as St. Aiiguftine^ in a myftical and facra- 
mental fenfe. In St. ]o\iX\^ (liys he, is fignify'd the 
Father by the word fpirit, the Son by the blood, and 
the Holy Qhofl by the water. St. Cyprian has nothing 
of this nature, how then can we afcribe the fame 
mcanmg to him ? For this purpofe there fhould have 
been fome di 11:1 ngui tiling mark in the paflage, from 
whence one might happily conjedure he defign'd a 
myflical interpretation 5 but if nothing can be found 
there, that has the leall look that way, and we will 
yet maintain it to be his mind, this is to make 
our felvcs mailers of an Author's words, and there 
is nothing in fuch a cafe we may not expound to 
what fcnle we pleafe. 

Factmdus has given himfelf this hberty in the af- 
fair of St. Cyprian^ and fucceeded no better in it than 
in his explication of the eighth verfe of Sr. John's 
Epiflle, and the third of his Gofpel. Mr. Simon up- 
on the occafion has ftyl'd him the learned Facnndus^ 
with dcfign by this encomium to preingage the 
judgment of his Readers ^ but I iha'n't fcruple to 
affirm, neither Mr. Simon^ nor any of his followers, 

would 
4 



( 47 ) 

would be willing to admit Facundus\ interpretation 
of the words jpirit^ water ^ and bloody or of the 
phrafc, God is afpirit^ upon which Facundus grounds 
his explication of the word fpirit in appropriating it 
to theperfon of the Father. I {hall add no more upon 
this head, out of regard to that ancient Bifhop, who 
for other paflages has highly deferv'd elteem 3 and I 
fhall gladly make ufe of what F. Sirmond^ to whom 
we owe the firfl Edition of Facundus*^ work, has 
faid in his favour, tho' in no proper place, upon the 
fubjed of a pafPage concerning the Eucharift. 7/" Fa- 
cundus has not well eaprefs'd himfelf ^ we ought to 
Jhew an indulgence toward hi?n^ who had fo much for 
others. But the refpc61; that's due to this venerable 
Prelate's piety fhould not take from us a right we 
have in common with him (which is no more than 
the right of reafon it felf,) to judge of the juft ap- 
plication of St. Cyprian's words by themfelves, and 
independently of the fentiment Facundus had ot 'em. 

I obferve farther, if this caufe muft be determin'd 
by tellimony, we fhall gain no fmall advantage from 
the evidence of another Bifhop, an African equally 
with Facundus^ and of a reputation in no wife infe- 
rior to him, I mean S. Fulgentius^ Bifnop oi Rufpe. 
He liv'd fome time before Facundus^ and wrote much 
againfl the Herefy of Arius, We have fhewn in 
the foregoing Chapter, that the feventh verfe is oft 
alledg'd in his writings, he produces it entire, and 
adds upon the quotation, 'This the blef/ed Martyr St. 
Cyprian has withal acknowledged^ writing in his Epi^ 
file concerning the Unity of the Church , It is written 
of the Father^ the Son^ and the Floly Ghoft^ that thefe 
three are one. If ^S*. Fulgentius had urg'd the words 
of the eighth verfe, the jpirit^ the water ^ and the bloody 
^c. and hereupon repeated the paflage from St. Cy- 
prian^ it might not without reafon have been averr'd, 
that the Holy Martyr had rehears'd 'em only with 
a view to the Trinity, and to fhew St. Cyprian iiad 

the 



( 48 ) 

the fame thoughts concerning that myftery with 
himfelf. But as St. Fulgentius has taken no notice 
of the eighth verfe, can it poflibly be imagin'd his 
quotation from St. Cyprian refpeds the eighth verfe^ 
and not the feventh which he has produc'd ? This 
would be fomewhat extraordinary. 

In the fecond Century Tertullian fiourifh'd in A-^ 
frick^ in which Age St. John died, ^ about the year 
102, according to Eufebius^ o/ according to others 
104, or I Of . At that time an Her.etick, nam'd Prax* 
eas^ taught there was but one Perfon in the God-* 
head, in fcripture call'd the Father. Tertullian has 
wrote a very excellent Treatife againll this error, and 
alledg'd the laft claufe of St. John\ pafTage upon the 
fubjed: of the three perfons in the Godhead, thefs 
three are one. His words taken out of his if "^^^ chap- 
ter are thefe, " Jefus faid of the Holy Ghofl, He 
'^ Jlmll take of mine ^ as he had taken of the Father j 
*^ and thus the connexion of the Father with the 
'' Son, and of the Son with the Holy Gholl, cau- 
^' feth thefe three to be united together 5 the which 
'^ three are one and the fame things not one and 
the fame perfon; as 'tis faid, / and my Father are 
one, " The Latin runs thus, q^iii tres unum funt, non 
unus'y quomodo diUum eft^ Ego 6c Pater unum fumus. 
The words, qui tres unum funt ^ are manifeflly the 
fame with the feventh verfe of St. John, 

'Tis pretended ^ 7'ertullian has thus exprefs'd him* 
felf of his own head (imply to expound the dodlrine 
of the three perfons in one God, and not with a 
view to the Text of the Apoftle ; and this notion is 
confirm'd by the mark of quotation, which occurs 
in the following paflage, j^s it is ^written^ I and my 
Father are one. 

The difcuffion of this point at the bottom is noE 



a Du Pin ly'i(fe,rt, PreUm.fur h Bible, lib, a. ch. 1. §. 6. 
fc Dijfert, Angl p. 38^ 

extremely 



( 49 ) 

fextremely important j we may eafily pafs over "jter- 
tuUiari's quotation after having feen St. Cyprian's^ 
who Hv'd in Jfrick much about the fame time, and 
whofc Bible was not different from 'tertullian's^ efpe- 
cially in fo momentous a point as the Text of the 
three perfons: But after all, I can fee nothing folid 
in the objection againd 1'ertuUian's paffage, and for 
this very reafon fhall undertake to defend it. Firflj 
'tis certain the Fathers have oft interwoven whole 
Texts, or fome part of a Text, with their Writings^ 
without notice of the citation, and as if the words 
had been of their own compofition 5 if this be difpu- 
ted I am ready to produce an infinite number of Ex-. 
amples. I fhall at prcfent content my felf with one 
in every rcfpeft parallel to ^ertuUian's', in that two 
Texts of fcripture coming immediately one after an- 
other, the former without any mark of quotation 
Hands as the Authors own words, and the latter, 
which flraightvv^ay follows, is exprefly quoted, tho' 
the mark of quotation be no n.ore necelTary in the 
one cafe than in the other. T his inftance is drawn 
from Gregory Nazianzen ^ who in his 44*^ Oration 
fpeaking of the gilt of Tongues the Apolilcs had re- 
ceiv'd on the Day of Pentecoft, has thcfe words. 
*' The Apoftles fpake in divers tongues, without 
" having learnt 'em, which was a fign not to them 
*' which believe^ hut to them which believed not \ and 
*' thus was an accufition of the unbelievers 5 as it \% 
^' written, / will/peak to this people in a flrange Jan- 
guage. Now, the former words, 7'ongues are a jigii 
to them which believe not^ &c. were taken from the 
twenty fecond vcrfe of the fourteenth chapter of 
the firfl epiifle to the Corinthians s and yet St. Gre- 
gory feems to have fpoke 'em of his own head, with- 
out any view to the Text of the Apollle : and the 
rather for his exprefs quotation of the Text which 
foUow'd. ^ertullian's is the fame cafe. 

Secondly, What confirms this reafoning is, that 

H St. 



(so) 

Sc. Cyprian^ who in his treatife of the Unity of the 
Church produc'd 'em as St. John's words, in another 
place urges no more than we have feen in TertuIUan^ 
^hefe three are one^ not obferving, that it was a quota- 
tion drawn from fcripture. The paflage I fpeak of is 
in St. Cyprian'' s Epiftle to Juhaianus^ pag. 205. of the 
Edition by the learned BiHiop of Oxford: He who 
receives Bdptifm^ fays St. Cyprian^ is fanUified^ and 
becomes the Temple of God '^ But of what God? Of the 
Creator ? This can^t be^ for he believes not in him. Of 
Chrift ? Alas ! How can he become the Temple of Chrift^ 
who does not acknowledge him to be God? Is he then 
the T'empJe of the Holy Ghoft^ fince thefe three are 
one ? Ctim hi tres unum fint^ as it is in the Latin. 
Here we fee the very words of St. John without the 
leaft mark or appearance of citation alledg'd as St. 
Cyprian'?, own equally with the reft : And why may 
we not pafs the fame Judgment upon the paflage of 
T'ertullian ? 

To fum up all in a few words. Thefe are the 
quotations, which from age to age down to the time 
of St. John^ have been made by Chriftian Divines of 
that Apoflle's Text concerning the three perfons of 
the Godhead in the Unity of Eflence. The firfl 
Latin Verfion of the New Teflament retain'd this 
valuable depofttum with the remaining part of the E- 
piflle j and St. Jerom took care it ihould not be o- 
mitted in the Bible he review'd and corrected. This 
Bible, which for a long time lay fhut up in Libra- 
ries as a Book to be confulted by the Learned or 
Curious, at length became the common Bible, and 
alone was read in the Churches > the Text of the 
Witnefles in heaven held there its ordinary place, and 
the Chiiilian Faith drew its nurture thence both in 
publick aflemblies and in private Families. This 
we have already fliewn from irrefragable authori- 
ties and unexceptionable evidence. A fmall num- 
ber might have fuffic'd, we demand no more in o- 

ther 



ther cafes, where party-intereft is not concern'd : 
How ftrong then mull be the conclufion, how dc- 
monftrative the teltimony, convey'd down thro' a 
fuccertlon of fo many Ages, and fupported by fuch 
abundant proofs ? 

e^o :^. tj «^ :?!o s^ tSTo cITw Jib olw J.O « ^ t'KU 

Chap. VIII. 

That this pcijjage of St. John h to be 
found in ^i?^ Greek Afanufcr'tpts of the 
Text of the New Tejiament^ as well as 
in the Latin. 

WE are told with alTurance enough to deceive, 
that this Text is no where found in the Greek 
Manufcripts of St. John's Epiftle j and a long lift of 
thefe Manufcripts is drawn out with much pomp and 
an air of ti lunrph, faid to have been feen in many Li- 
braries of France^ England and other Countries, where- 
in the verfe is wanting. But before we enter upon 
a particular examen of the Manufcripts, we mayob- 
ferve, that as the pafTage has been ever in the Italick 
Verfion, compos'd in the firft or fecond Century, the 
Compilers of that Verfion from the Greek Copies muft 
have either inferted it of their own head, ortranflated 
it from the Greek. Now the former propofition is too 
abfurd to be advanced j and therefore it muft have 
been in the Greek Original, and the old Italick Ver- 
fion in this refped hold the place of a Greek Copy. ■; 
St. Jerom^ upon revifing the Italick Bible towards 
the clofe of the fourth Century, took care to throw 
out the principal faults only, which had ftolcn into 
the MSS. and had efpecial regard to confult the Greek 
Copies, Novum ^eftamentum^ fays he, as we have a- 

H i bove 



bove obferv'd, fidei Gr^ae reddidi. St. John's paflage 
is found in his Bible ; Here then we have Greek MSS. 
on our fide, and MSS. the more valuable, as they are 
more ancient. Mr. Sirdon owns we have now not 
many above {ix or feven hundred years old > he excepts 
none but the Alexandrian ^ and one in the Vatican : 
The MSS. St. Jerom followed in his revife were far be- 
fore all thefe, and the Copies from which the Italick 
Verfion was tranflated were yet more ancient than St. 
Jerom'^s. If, when the African Bifhops drew up the 
excellent Confeffion of Faith we have already Ijpoke 
oF, the pafTage of St. 7^^;^ , which holds there fo 
confiderable a plac^, had not been in theGr^^y^ of the 
New Tedament, they could not have urg'd it with- 
out expofing themfelves to a fevere Cenfure. The 
Arians would have certainly exclaim'd, that the paf- 
fige was wanting in the Greek Original \ for the Greek 
Tongue was in thofe Days well known in Africk^ as 
we learn from an Epiflle of St. Augufline to St. Je- 
rom^ and may fee more fully in the Life of St. Fulgen- 
tius. The paflage then mull: of neceflity have been iri 
the Greek Copies of that Age. 

In fine, when in the eighth Century the learned' 
Men employed by Charles the Great, labour'd to free 
the Latin Bibles from the faults Tranfcribers had fuc- 
cefl^vely thrown into 'em, we can't but fuppofe that 
they alfo, as St. Jerom before them, confulted the 
Greek MSS. Mr. Simon maintains, the Proem to the 
feven Canonical Epiitles was the work of thefe Cor- 
redors > I have ihewn it to be St. Jerom's own per- 
formance, but be it fo, if they will have it, that 'twas 
wrote by one of the learn'd Revifers, the ends I pro- 
pos'd will yet be obtahi'd. The Compiler of it makes 
heavy Complaints againft certain Tranflators, whom 
he ilyles unfaithful^ for not having inferted into their 
Verfion of Sr. John's Epiftle the Text concerning the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoil^ but this Au- 
thor would have become the fubjed of publick laugh- 

ter, 



(53) 

ter, if the Text had not been in the Greek Copies. 
Here then are ^.ther MSS. convey'd down to our 
times by the complaint \i\ that Preface. 

We have at prefent no iMSS. remaining of thofe 
remote Ages, time has fwept them all away, but as 
St. Paul{\\d of j^bel. ^ that being dead, by bis works 
he yet fpeakcth-y fo may we fay in fome manner of all 
thefe ancient MSS. they are now no more., but yet 
fpeak to us in the V'erfions and Quotations we have 
feen. Their language is only chang'd, the fenfe and 
meaning of the Greek has pals'd entu'ely into the La- 
tin-y and this is what's properly divine in a Text of 
Holy Scripture. 

But is it then triie, that there's no Greek MS. found 
in thefe later Ages, which has the pafiage of St. 
John ? No, afluredly, 'tis not true. I know nothing 
is more confidently aflerted , but nothing withal has 
been more rafhly advanc'd. Mr. Simon^ whom I fhall 
continually keep in view throughout this DiiTertati- 
on, becaufe I fee 'tis from him and his writings the 
clamours chiefly proceed, has in his Critical Hiftory 
of the New Teiiament own'd more than once the 
pafldge to be in f -veral Greek MSS. In one place he 
has faid, ^ "this p iff'ige is in very few Greek Copies : 
A little after, ^ It is not in the generality of the Greek 
Copies : Again, ^ 'TJi only in the mofi modern Greek 
MSS. Well then, tho' 'tis not in the generality of 
^em, the' 'tis but in a few, yet 'tis in fomc of 'em j 
which may fuffice for an anfwer to fuch, as peremp- 
torily afTert, that 'tis in none. What Mr. Simon fays, 
that 'tis only in the mofi modern MSS. would do him 
no fcrvice, fhould wc grant it, as I fhall fliew in a- 
nother place ^ but on the contrary 'tis certain, the 
Text is found in MSS. of the higheil antiquity. 



a Heh. II. 4. b lltfl, dii VerCions, ch. II. « iy\^^ ch. \6 

t Ch. l8. 

Nej^" 



(54) 

Near 500 years ago Laurent ius Falla^ a Noble* 
man of Rome^ and of vaft learning for the time he 
liv'd in, was the firfl: , fay Mr. Du Pin and Mr. Si- 
mon^ who made enquiry after the Greek MSS. of the 
New Teftament 5 he got into his hands feven, a num- 
ber at that time very confiderable , if we regard the 
fcarcity of Greek Copies then in Europe^ or known to 
be there. The paHage of St. John was found in all 
the feven. Thefe MSS. would have been modern in- 
deed, if not one among 'em was of four or five hun- 
dred years (landing % yet this added to the 300 years, 
or thereabouts 5 that have pafs'd fince, will in our 
days amount at lead to feven or eight hundred years. 
The Greek MSS. wherein Mr. Simon has obferv'd the 
pafTage to be wanting, by this computation will be 
the more modern of the two : fince, except the MS. 
in the Fatican^ and that of Alexandria , he gives to 
none a longer date than 600 years. But let us fup- 
pofe, if they require it, Valla' ^ MSS. were not above 
three or four hundred years old, they will yet equal 
all the others in antiquity. 

In the difpute Edward Ley had with Erafnzus upon 
his not inferring the Text of the three Witncflcs, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, into the two 
firll Editions he had made of the Greek Teflament, 
he urg'd againft him the Authority of Z/^^r^;^//^j Fal- 
'la's MSS. Erafmus defended himfelf by faying he had 
not found the pafiage either in the four Greek MSS. 
from whencehe made his firll: Edition of if 16. or in 
a fifth he had afterward confulted upon publifhing 
his fecond. 

In the year ifip. Cardinal Cajetan wrote a Com- 
ment upon theEpiftles, and being come to the firll 
Epifrle of St. John^ he declares himfelf not fully fa- 
tisfy'd, that the words of the feventh Verfe, For there 
are three^ i^c, were St. John's , becaufe, tho' they 
were in fome, he had not found them in all Greek 
MSS. If thefe ^words^ fiiys he, belong to the Text^ they 

are 



( 55 ) 

are added to pr^ve what before was obferv'dj that tht 
Spirit is truth : I fay^ if they belong to the text^ be- 
caiife they are to be met with only in fome Greek MSS. 
not in all: But whence^ adds he, this diverfety proceeds^ 
Imuft profefs^ Tm unable to determine. 

Valla had wrote above an hundred years before the 
conteil of Ley and Stunica with Erajmus concerning 
this paflagc j the difpute had made a noife in the world 
fcveral years before Cardinal Cajetan compos'd his 
Commentary j he cfpoufes neither fide of the quefti- 
on, and for this reafon his teftimony that the verfe is 
found in fome Greek Manufcripts is above fufpicionj 
nor can we imagine a man fo learned, as Cajetan was, 
who had free acccfs to all the Libraries m Rome^ 
where he wrote his Comment, did not fee any of the 
MSS. he mentions, as well thofe, which had thepaG- 
fage of St. fohn.^ as thofe, which had it not. 

In the year if 14. Cardinal Ximenes began his im- 
preflion of the Old and New Teftament in many lan- 
guages at Complutnm^ otherwife nam'd Alcala des He^ 
narcs^ in the Kingdom of CaJliUe^ and upon the Cre- 
dit of one or more MSS. he inferred into his Edition 
St. John's pafTage. 

Erafmus^ who had omitted it in his two former 
Editions, put out a third in the year if 22. into 
which he brought it > his reafon was, becaufe after 
the two foregoing impreflions were pubiifli'd, he had 
feen it in a MS. in England^ as his note upon the 
Text informs us. Of this MS. and the Compluten- 
Jian we fhall have occafion to fpeak more at large. 

In the year if 46. R. Stephen undertook a Greek 
Edition of the New Teilament with all poflible ex- 
a(5lnefs. And to this purpofe he was careful in fearch- 
ing out the mod: ancient and mod correct MSS. The 
French King's Library of it (di furniili'd him with 
eight j and he procured eight others, either from the 
Convents, or private Libraries 5 to thcfc he added the 
Comphitenfian Editicn, which he found to a^rce with 

his 



( 5n 

his beft MSS. He examin'd 'em with all the judg- 
ment and accuracy he was mafter of, and at the con- 
clufion fent abroad that valuable Greek Edition, which 
is in truth ; ; : of the moft beautiful was ever printed. 
The paOagc of St. Johfi is there entire, taken from 
thefe MSS. 

This Edition^ and a fecond that follow'd three 
years alter, had nothing but the plain Greek of the 
New Tellarnent, for both of 'em being printed in a 
fmall Volume, he had not room to fet down in the 
margin the different readings of feveral of his MSS. 
Stephen hereupon caufes a third Edition to be made 
on large paper in iffo. wherein he diftinguiihes the 
MSS. which any where differ'd in their reading of the 
Text, by the Greek numeral L'^tters oc^ /3, 5/, (^c. 
Thus the pafTage of St. John is equal!} °^ this Edition 
with the two former, but ai the words Iv rf ^(^vw^ 
in heaven J there is a reference, which informs us, 
they were not in the MSS. cited in the margin: and 
at the lad claufe, t^^? h elc-i^ we are refcr'd to the 
GomplMenJIanEdition^ where we read, r^eiV «V to tv «V;. 
The great exaftnefs of Stephen in fetting down the 
various readings is a proof the Text occur'd in his 
MSS. 

In the year if 74. the Divines of the Univcrfity 
of Louvain made an Impreflion of the Latin Bible 
with a Preface, wherein they acknowledge R. Ste^ 
fhen found the Paflage of St. John in his Greek 
MSS., and add, that they alfo had feen it in many 
others : The words of the Preface are too remarka- 
ble to be omitted in this place. Mr. Simon has ^ thus 
cranflated 'em : St, Jerom complains in his Preface up^ 
m the Canonical Epiftles of unfaithfulnefs in the 'tran- 
fiat or s^ who omitted the tefiimony of the 'Father^ the 
Word^ and the Holy Ghoft j this makes good the read' 
ing of the Text^ which is alfo fupported by abundance 

' Hijl, des Verfions, ch, 11. 



( 57 ) 

of Latin Copies^ and over and ahove by two Greek Co- 
pies produced by Erafmus, the one in England, the other 
in Spain > and we our Iclves have feen feveral others 
like thefe. The fame pajfage is read in all StephenV, 
only the 'words in ca^lo are wanting in /even of ''em. 

What thefc Do6i:ors fay of their having fcen this 
Text in many other MSS. deferves well to be re- 
mark'd. But what could Mr. Simon think of the 
matter, when he trandated this paflage? He has not 
given us the Icall reaion to imagine he did not believe 
'em.: Befides, we caji't fufpcft the honelty of fo ma- 
ny Dodors in fo famous an Univerfity j cfpecially in 
a matter, where it might have been demanded on all 
fides to produce the MSS. like to Stephen's in the 
paflage of St. John. Nor can we by any means wreft 
their Expreflions to the Latin MSS., their Subject 
led 'em only to the Greek > they were talking of the 
MSS. in Itngland^ in Spain^ and of Stephen^ and 
then immediately follows, we have feen many others 
like thefe^ i. e. many other Greek MSS. fuch as thefe 
were. The rules of language and notions of com- 
mon fenfe won't allow us to underftand 'em other- 
wife. 

F. Amelotte^ of the O'ratoiy, who put out aFrench 
Verfion of the New Teftament with Notes, has one 
upon this Text in thefe words : Erafmus has [aid this 
verfc was wanting in a Greek MS. of the Vatican -, 
hut I my felf have fen it in the mofi ancient MS, of 
that Library. Erajmns and he might both be in the 
right, for as there are feveral Greek MSS. in that 
celebrated Library, the paflage might be wanting in 
that which Erafmus'^ Friend collated for him, and F. 
Amelotte withal have feen it at Rtme with his own 
Eyes in another Manufcript. 

'Tis faid to be alio in a MS. at Berlin in the King's 
Library reputed f oo years old. F. k Long ^ gives 



■* Bihl'ioth. Sacr. Tom. i. Ch. 3. §. 4. 

I US 



(58) 

US this account upon the tedimox/iy of Sauhertus and 
ToUius : and Dr. Kettner rcl-ates the fame from a Let- 
ter, that was fent him by Mr. Jablonski^ a fam'd 
Preacher of the King's, and well skilFd in the Orien- 
tal languages. 

We fee here are more MSS. than are abfolutely 
necefTary to convince us, the PalTiige of St. John was 
found in a very few MSS. only, and thofe the mo ft 
modern, as Mr. Simon has endeavoured to impole up- 
on the world in his Critical Hidory. His behaviour 
has been yet worfe, fince he wrote the three Vo- 
lumes of that work j for in a Letter he fent to an 
Abbat of his acquaintance, he retra61:s this partial 
acknowledgment and falls into a formal contradiction > 
the expreflions in the Letter are very obfervable j 
^ 7'he feTenth verfe of the fifth Chapter of the firfi E- 
pifile of St. John is found^ you fay^ in the Armenian 
Ferfion > tho"" I have my felf objer'v'd this pajjage of 
the three witnejfes in heaven is in no written Greek 
Copy, nor any of the Oriental Ferfions. Tou may add 
withal^ that fince the writing my Critical Hiflo7ies I 
have read fever al other MSS. Copies^ and not found fo 
much as one^ that has the verfe. 

Now, which of the Mr. Simon's may we credit? 
The writer of the Critical Hiftories has told us, the 
paflage is in a few Greek MSS. tho' of modern dates 
the Mr. Simon^ who wrote the Letter, declares he 
has obferv'd the paflage to be in no Greek Manufcript. 
But after ail, tho' 'twas not in the Greek MSS. which 
fell under Mr. Simon's view, mull it therefore follow 
that 'twas in no others ? Valla^ Ximenes^ Erafmus^ 
Stephen^ and many other Learned Men have feen it, 
fome in Italy^ others in France^ fome in Spain^ others 
in England^ and fome in \h^ Low-Countries : and has 
the Text yet no place in the Greek MSS. ? The per- 



B'lbl'ioth. Critiq. on Lettres cholfes, Tom. 4, Lett, 24. 

fonsj 



(59) 

ions, who difpute and deny this Fafr, will never gain 
their caufe, if the matter be tried by reafon. 

In the mean while, that they might not fiibmit 
wholly to thele tertimonics, they have afTerted, the 
vcrfe was originally a Scholium^ or marginal note, 
which pafsM from the margin into the Text through 
the imprudence, or mifguided zeal of tranfcribers. 
It has happened fometimes, in ihort, that a fmall note 
wrote in the margin to explain the fenfe of a palTage 
has thro' the carelefnefs of the Copiers crept into the 
Body of the Text j but then this has been in MSS. 
only copied after a former, and the note or Sc/jo- 
Hum has always there remain'd the fame. Here's no- 
thing of this fort in the cafe before us, no marginal 
Greek Scholium has been ever found in the fame terms 
with this verfe, or which abfolutely exprelTes the 
fame things no fuch inllance can be produc'd : and 
befides, how was it podible this pretended Scholium 
could pafs into the MSS. of fo many different Coun- 
tries, and there form Texts with feveral variations 
from each other, as may be feen in the MSS. of Xi- 
mcnes^ Erafmus^ and Stephen ? This pretence has fo 
little ground, that Mr. Simon ^^ who had urg'd it in 
his Critical Hiftory, has cwn'd its abfurdity in his 
Differtation upon MSS. and entirely abandon'd the 
Conje<5ture -, I 'would fuppofe then^ fays he, that this 
was ^ as is commonly believ'd^ in fome real Greek 
MSS. and indeed^ were this fuppos'd^ I fee not what 
reafon can be brought to prove the contrary. To fum 
up the matter, 'tis true, that the MSS. of Falla^ 
Erafmus^ Ximcnes^ and Stephens^ i^c. are genuine, and 
not forg'd : ?w reafon therefore can be brought to prove 
the contrary to what we have in them of the Text of 
^t, John's Epiftle, i. e, no reafon can be brought to 
prove the feventh verfe of the fifth Chapter to be a 



a H'lJ}, Crit. du, Texte du N. Tefi. Ch. 1 8. 

I z Scholiy.ti 



( ^o ) 

Scholium^ an addition dcriv'd from the margin, or 
clfewhere. 

Chap. IX. 
Of R. Stephen'^ Manufcripts. 

I Find a wrong Judgment is nfually pafs'd upon the 
number of MSS. in general , from which was 
printed the Greek Edition of R. Stephen's^ and in par- 
ticular the MSS. of the feven Canonical Epiilles. 
I fhould not niuch concern ray felf in clearing this 
matter, if it had not a near relation to the principal 
fubjcd of my DifTertation in defence of St. John'^ 
paliage. 

'Tis commonly thought, Stephen had but fixteen 
Copies of the Greek Teitament, including the Com- 
flutenfian Edition of the Bible ; and of thefe Sixteen 
only eight had the Epidle of St. John with the other 
Canonical Epiftles; and from hence 'tis concluded, 
that if the pafTage of the witnefles in heaven was not 
in {^\tn of thefe MSS. 'twas then only in the Copy 
of the Complutenfian Bible, from whence Stephen 
tvansfer'd it into his Edition. I ihall fet right this 
affair, which in my opinion has not been fufficiently 
difentangled. 

Firft, 'tis not true, that R.Stephen had only if 
Manufcripts befides the Edition at Complutum: he 
had 16: Copies in writing, and himfelf fays in his Pre- 
face, / have collated the Greek text with 16 writ- 
ten Copies^ very ancient. After this tellimony what 
room is left for doubting ? Be-za had the ufc of all 
Stephen^ Copies, he read 'em and compared 'em all 
together, when he put out his own Edition of the 
New Teftament, and he expreflly declares, there were 
with the Complutenfian Bible 17 of 'em : 1 have com- 

pafd 



(6i) 

par'd ^ fays he, the Books of the New Tejiament with 
the 17 different Greek Copies of Stephen. 

Every one of thefe Copies had not the New Tella- 
ment entire j fome of em which had been divided into 
two Volumes, having only in the firft the four Gof- 
pels, and the Ads of the Apoflles, which generally 
went together, wanted the fecond Volume, that con- 
tain'd the remaining part of the New Teftament > o- 
thers on the contrary had the fecond Volume, the 
Epiftolary Code^ without the firft. And thus the 
one and die other were imperfect Copies: for in- 
Ihnce, the fir 11: Volume of one of the moft ancient 
Manufcripts of the New Teftament is at Cambridgey 
the fecond in the French King's Library > fo that the 
Manufcript Copy both at Paris and Cambridge is de- 
fective. Now the reafon why 1 fay Stephen had 
fome Copies thus imperfed js, that I find in the V^ome 
of the Gofpels mention made of certain Manufcripts 
that no where occur in the Epiilles, as are the three 
mark'd y. ?. >j. that is, the 5^^, the 6^'^ and the 8 ^^ -, and 
fo I find in the Epiftles fome that are no where feen 
in the Gofpels, to wit, n. and t?, the \^^^ and 16'^; 
I fpeak only of written Copies, for as to the Comphi- 
tenfian Bible, that contain'd the whole New Tefla- 
ment, as do all Editions. 

As for the fecond Volume, which took in the E- 
pillles, I have obferv'd eleven Manufcript Copies, 
whereof nine had alfo the firfl Vol. but the two others 
namely a. 6c i^. mull have belonged to a defeftive 
Book. 

And for the feven Canonical Epiftles, Mr. Roger 
Dr. of Divinity at Bourges^ who not long ago pub- 
liih'd a Difcourie in behalf of St. John's pafiage, ob- 
fervcs, ^ that having carefully reckoned up the MSS. 
quoted in the margin of the Epililes, he could find 
there but feven, exclufive of the Cornplutenfian Copy, 

^ Bcz. Pr&fat. in N. Tejiam. ^ Part I, §. 3. pagi 14, 

i. €. 



(6z ) 

I e, the Manufcrlpts mark'd ^. e. ^. b. i. la. ty. But 
^U.R.oger was not juil in his computation, for he 
over-look'd the Manufcrit <^. quoted f. 4. of the 
firft Chapter of St. Peter's fccond Epiille. 

This makes eight Manufcripts of the Epidles, yet 
ha-e is not all their number. Thefe Epiftles made 
but one Volume v/ith the Epiflles of St. Paul, if 
then there were eleven Manufcript Copies of St. 
PauPs fourteen Epiflles, there were fo many withal 
of the Canonical Epililes, for all the one and twenty 
were bound together. 

I obferve alfoj that the two Copies cited by the 
numeral Letters ie. & i^. which fignifie the fifteenth 
and fixteenth, are found in the Epiflles and Apo- 
calypfe, as making up but one Volume. But I 
can't conceive, how the feven Canonical Epiflles in- 
terpos'd betwixt St. PauFs and the Apocalypfe, could 
have been wanting in thofe Volumes: whence I con- 
clude, the fame Copies which had St.PauPs fourteen 
Epiflles had alfo the feven others. 

Whence is it then, will fome fay, that R. Stephen 
has produced but feven Manufcripts of St. John's firfl 
Epiftle? And whence is it, fay 1 in my turn, that he 
has cited only fix Manufcripts of that Apollle's fecond 
Epiflle, and four of the third? Whence is it, he has 
faid nothing of the Complutenfian Edition, neither in 
the Epiflle to Titus^ nor the fecond of St. john^ which 
in other Books is alledg'd throughout ? No one will 
attempt to fay, 'twas becaufe he had not that Edi- 
tion of the Bible by him, or that he had fewer Manu- 
fcripts of the fecond and third Epiflles of St. John^ 
than of the firfl : the fame anfwer then they fhall make 
to my queries, will ferve for theirs, I fhall give no o- 
ther. Stephen therefore cited only in each Epiflle 
the Manufcripts, wherein he found fuch various read- 
ings, as he judg'd worthy his notice. 

And thus much for this dry tedious matter, which 
can't but be wearifome to mofl of our Readers, as it 

was 



( ^3 .) 

was grievous to us. But what is there in the whole, 
that can be of fervice to the caule I defend ? Why 
this, fome have attempted to elude in the manner we 
fhall fee in the next chapter, the feven Manufcripts 
plac'd in the margin of the verfe concerning the three 
witneflcs, the Father, the Word and the Spirits and 
thefe Manufcripts being taken away, this general con- 
clufion is thence drawn, that as there were no other 
Manufcripts of that Epifilc, fo not one was found 
which had the paiTiige in it. 

The oppofers of th . genuinenefs of this Text are not 
the only perfons, who by all thefe long windings and 
turnings come at the mentioned conclulion. Mr. Ro- 
ger^ who writes in the Gme caufe with us, has fufFer- 
ed himfelf to be furpriz'd into it. After he had de- 
clar'd in the palTage of his Difiertation we have above 
refer'd to, that having exactly computed the Manu- 
fcripts of the Canonical Epiilles in R. Stephen's Edi- 
tion, he found 'em to be only feven, he in one place 
^ fays, the Obelus fet over again ft the feventh verfe 
cuts off that verfe, as not appertaining to theEpiftlej 
and in another ^ concludes, that none of StephenV 
Manufcripts had the ^ext in difpute. Our adverfaries 
are much oblig'd to him for fo free an acknowledg- 
ment, that at once gives a difcharge to all Stephen's 
Manufcripts which have been ever look'd en as the 
Bulwark of St. John'^Texi. But after having unde- 
niably prov'd, as 1 have done, that the Manufcripts 
of this Epiftle were not reduc'd to the number of 
feven, I fhall now iliew from a pofitive teftimony of 
Beza's^ that the Text in quellion was alfo in others 
befides thofe feven. The v^ords of that learned Man, 
who was fo well acquainted with all Stephen's Ma- 
nufcripts, upon this Subject are thefe, ^ This verfe 
does not occur in the Syriack Verfion^ ^q. hut is found 



3. pag. 15. b §. 12.. c Bcz. N.TeJi, in fol. 

in 



in the Englifli Manufcript in the Complutenlian Edi- 
tion^ and in fome ancient Manufcrlpts of Stephen. 

It will be anfwer'd, perhaps, that Beza here al- 
ludes to the feven Manufcripts cited in the margin of 
the verfe. Tho' this were fuppos'd, 'twould yet al- 
ways (land good from fo confiderable a teftimony, 
that the difputed paflage was in feveral of thefe anci- 
ent Manufcripts j but this was not Beza's meaning. 
The matter will foon be clear'd, if we keep cloie 
to his words. 

1 . His note begins thus, 1 am entirely perfuaded^ 
*we ought to retain this 'verfe : here he fpeaks in oppo- 
fition to their fentiment, who would rejed it out 
of the Epiitlcj this then was the fam.e verfe, that 
was in fome of i?. ^'/^/^te's Manufcripts, but the 
Manufcripts cited in the margin bear relation to only 
one or two words of the verfe. 

2. Beza's obfervation at the fame time, that this 
verfe was not in the Syriack Verlion, nor the other 
Books he names, took in the whole verfe : but of 
the fame verfe he moreover obferv'd, that it was in 

fome Manufcripts of R. StephenV, here then he fpeaks 
of the Manufcripts only, that had the verfe entire. 

3 . Beza joyns together the Manufcripts he treats 
of with the Englifh Manufcript, and the Compluten- 
/^;2 Edition > but both in that Manufcript and Editi- 
tion the verfe was perfedtj and therefore the y^;i^^ 
Manufcripts of Stephen^ which had it alfo, were not 
the Manufcripts cited in the Margin, which v/anted 
part of the verfe. 

4. Laflly^ Beza diftinguillies the Manufcripts that 
wanted the words Im tw j^^vw from the foregoing 
ones \ for having faid the verfe was in fome ancient 
Manufcripts of Stephen^ he immediately adds, the 
Words bf Tw ^^vw are wanting in feven Manufcripts, it 
was natural to fay they were wanting in thefe MSS. 
provided they had been the famej whereas faying 
flmply in feven^ we can't otherwife underlland him 

than 



( ^5 ) 

vxn of feven others: but in how many of 'em the 
vcrie was, we are unable to determine} .6^;3t^'s note 
lays only at large, that 'twas mfo?ne of 'em : and this 
we ought to keep clofe to. 

Chap. X. 

Of the Obelus and Semicircle^ the paffage 
of St, John IS mark' d with in Stephen'^ 
^ Edition. 



WHAT the Greeks name ohelus is in terms 
of printing a fmall pointed hne plac'd a- 
crofs the fide of a word, to ihew that from that 
word to another, where is fet a fort of a little paren- 
thefis, the whole which is interpos'd is wanting in 
the Manufcripts cited in the Margin over againfl the- 
Text. In this manner has R. Stephe?i mark'd an in- 
finite number of places in his Edition of if f o. fome- 
times one word alone, fometimes feveral together, 
are put into the Text of the New Teftament, which 
were not in fome particular Manufcripts of his, or 
were wanting in the Complutenfian Bible. 

As he had found in that Bible, and feveral of his 
Manufcripts the pallage of the feventh verfe whole 
and entire } fo in fome others he obferv'd the words 
dfr Tw ^p^vod in heaven were wanting. But difccrn- 
ing well this could be nothing elfe than an omiPilon, 
he gives the words a place in his Text j and that he. 
might not fliil of exadnefs, or be charg'd with un- 
fliir dealing, he fets an obelus at the head of the 
three words, and adds a fmall parenthefis after x'e^vw, 
to fliew they were wanting in the Manufcripts de- 

K fcrib'd 



(66) 



fcrib'd in the margin by their proper numeral let- 
ters. 

In all this there would be no difficulty, andthofe 
who difpute the genuincnefs of St.John's palfage would ; 
be oblig'd to own 'twas in Stephen's Manufcripts, if 
they agreed with us, that the Semicirle, which clos'd 
the obelisk'd fentencc, was inferted by Stephen into j 
the place it now holds in his New Teftament : but I 
this they fay is a fault of the prefs. Stephen Curcel- 
l^eus^ who in all probability was the firft, that had 
recourfe to this Subterfuge, put out in the year 1 6f c3 , 
a Greek Edition of the New Teftament, where of his 
own head, and by his fole authority, he removed, to 
ufe the Scripture phrafe, /Z?^ ancient landmarks^ and 
plac'd the Semicircle, which foUow'd after the 
words a/ T6? ^pfjivoo-i at the clofe of the words iv 
T? y^ in earthy which ifand in the middle of the 8di 
verfcj by this artifice gi?ing to underftand, that all 
rhefe words, in heaven^ the Father^ the word and the 
Holy Ghoft^ and thefe three are one: And there are 
three^ that hear witnefs in earthy were foppofititious. 
This boldnefs of Ctircell^^us foon met with followers > 
fo apt to fpread is the contagion of ill examples ! For 
in i67f . out comes a Gr^^/^N.TeftamentatOA/<5fi with 
the fame parenthefis. 'Tis alledg'd, that Lucas Brti- 
genfis had before pafs'd the like judgment upon the 
obelus and femicirclcj but all he has faid amounts 
to no more than this, that the palTage was in all Ste- 
phen's yhxiW^QU'^x.s^^' provided the femi circle in that 'verfe 
was rightly plac'd: which at moll can only imply, 
that this Learned Man had fome fupicion the femicir- 
c\c was mifplac'd > but he in no wife affirms it was, 
much farther is he from determining the place where 
it ought to fland. Befides there is a deal of difference 
betwixt having a private fentiment concerning fuch 



a Luc. Brugenfis. Si tamen femkirculus le^ioms defignans ter^ 
minHm fuo loco fu collocatus. 

an 



(^7 ) 

mi -afFair, and introducing that fentiment into the 
Text oF Scripture it felf j lince fuppoiing the opinion 
to be falfe, as I Ihall fliew it to be, it is with regard 
to them who know the fignification of fuch a mark 
in that place, no Icls than thecrafing and cutting off 
that whole verfe. 

Fr and feus Junius^ who is commonly thought to 
be the Author of the Greek Edition of the Bible 
printed at Francfort in the year i f ^7. among the va- 
rious readings at the bottom of the page, gives us the 
differences Stephen found in his Manufcripts, and 
limits the femicircle of the feventh verfe to the place 
where it (lands in the Ediaon of if fo. 

John Crifpln^ Advocate to the Parliament of Pa- 
ris^ a man learned in the Law, and skill'd in all po- 
lite learning, withdrew himfelf to Gene'va in if 47. 
for the more free profeffion of the Proteliant Reli- 
gion : he there fet up a Prinring-prefs, and in iffj- 
put out an Edition of the Greek Teilament, in which 
the obelus and femicircle of St. John's paffage are 
found in the fame place, as in R. Stephen's Edition. 
This is a proof that Stephen who was yet alive, and 
in the fame town with Crifpin^ had not difcover'd an 
error in his placing the parentheHs. 

Beza can yet mform us better how the matter 
ilands: All Stephen's Manufcripts as we have feeu 
had been put into his hands, and he made ufe of 
'em in reviling the GreeklCcxt^ and making thereup- 
on his Annotations from the beginning of St. Mat- 
thew to the end o^ the Jpocalypje. ^ K.Stephen had 
oft prefs'd him to this work, and himfelf printed it 
at Geneva^ whither he had retir'd from France in the 
year iffi. After his death, which happened in the 
year iffp. Henry Stephenhis Son, a very learned man, 
in the Greek Tongue efpecially, reprinted Beza's 



P Beza'i Letter to (^een Elizabeth. 

K i isTotes, 



( .^8 ) 

iSfotes, and furnifh'd him with a valuable Copy of 
the New Teilament of his Father Roberts^ wherein 
was a vaft number of Critical Remarks, wrote with 
bis own hand. 'Tis eafy from all this to imagine, 
that fuch a man as Bexa was, who had fuch near al- 
liances with the Stephen's^ both Father and Son, and 
who had in his own hands their Manufcripts, which 
he continually throughout his Notes calls noftri codices^ 
our Manufcripts, and which in almoft every note he 
tells us, he had read, examin'd, and compar'd, legi- 
mus^ invenimus^ comperimus in noftris^ &c. / have 
read^ Ihave found^ Ibave obferv'd inour Manufcripts. 
'Tis, I fay, eafy to imagine that he could not be igno- 
rant whether the Semicircle under coniideration was 
plac'd where it is by R. Stephen^ or where it ought 
to have been plac'd. The fubje6t was of moment ; 
Stephen^ under whofe eyes, as 1 may fay, thefe anno- 
tations were made, was not ignorant of it, and Beza 
in his Notes upon this verfe gives fufficient notice 
how nice the matter was: let us then fee what he 
fays upon it. Firft, he obferves, that the feventh 
verfe is in fome ancient Manufcripts of Stephen^ as 
in that of England^ and in the Complutenfian Bible. 
He next takes notice of certain variations in Stephen'^ 
Manufcripts, and the Manufcript in England: In 
that^ fays he, the i<oords Father^ Wordy and Spirit are 
with their articles^ but without their articles in our 
Manufcripts. The Manufcript of England has /imply 
the word Spirit, without joyning to it the epithet of 
Holy> in ours they are joyn d^ and we read the Holy 
Spirit, ^s to the words in heaven, they are wanting 
in f even ancient Manufcripts. If the whole verfe had 
been wanting like thefe words in the Manufcripts, Be- 
xa would not have given their variations from the 
Manufcript in England-^ all that he could have had 
to fay would have been in Ibort, that this Text was 
in the EngUfi Manufcript, but not in Ours y inflead 
of that, he gives us to underlland, that the Manu- 
fcript 



i^9 ) 

fcript in England^ and the Mnnufcripts of Stephen 
■were the fame, except in the differences he had mark'd. 
Can any thing be more evident ? 

See yet another argument taken from Beza againft 
the tranfpofition Cnrcellieus and others have made of 
the fcmicircle by placing it after the words of the 
eighth verfe, a> rvj yy,^ in earth, for by this means 
thefe words are call out of Stephen's MSS. as if they 
had really never been there, whereas 'tis moft fure 
they were there. Let us confult Beza's Note ; ^he 
Syriack Tranjlator and the ancient Verfton^ 6cc. have 
not the words^ In Earth > hut they are in our Greek 
MSS, and in the Latin Tranjlation. 

But what need have we tofeek for proofs elfewhere 
than from Stephen himfelf? He had plac'd at the end 
of his Edition an Errata^ where he has taken notice 
of one Comma forgot, and another mifplac'd, mat- 
ters of very little importance : that of the pa(Iage of 
St. John is of infinitely more moment, fince no lefs 
than the reje61:ing it as a forg'd Text, or retaining it 
as genuine is concern'd in the affair > its fate then in 
that edition depended upon the right or wrong placing 
a fort of comma : Stephen knew all this, and had not 
he the forefight to provide againfl an error in fo ma- 
terial a pointjwho had taken fuch great care to put out 
an Edition as correct as was poffible? Or in cafe this 
little figure had happen'd to have been plac'd wrong, 
and fo efcap'd the vigilance of the Learned Printer m 
revifing the proof Sheets, would he have caff but a 
tranfient view upon a place that more than the rcff 
deferv'd his notice, and requir'd his utmoft attenti- 
on? Let who will blame him, but reafon will ne- 
ver give the caufe againd him, unlefs evident proofs 
can be brought to the contrary: and what are thefe 
proofs? and whence are they taken? No other an- 
fwer can be given, than that this Text is not in fuch 
and fuch Greek MSS. and by confequence it was not 
in thofe of Stephen-, but not being there ^ the fe- 

micircle 



(7o) 

rnlcircle which follows after the word s/^vi^ mufi 
be mifplac'd in his Edition, and ought to be tranf- 
pos'd fifteen or fixteen words farther. Admirable 
confequences ! The Text is not in the Fatican iManu- 
fcript, nor in the Alexandrian^ l^c. confeqiiently in 
none of Stephen^ 5 and upon the force of fuch acon- 
fequence the place of the femicircle in this verfe is 
chang'd, and carried wherefoever we pleafe. A very 
poor Logician may fee the unconclufivenefs of this rea- 
ibning, 'tis impoSible to avoid it > and yet thefe arc 
our great Mafters, our learned Criticks, who fall into 
this miftake, and are infeniible of their error. 

When Stephen had occafion to place the obelu? 
before any palfage, where a whole line was wanting, 
he always plac'd it precifely where the omifTion be- 
gan, no inflance can be produc'd otherwife. If then 
the words. Inhere are three^ that bear record in heaven^ 
the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe 
three are om^ ought to have been mark'd as not re- 
ally appertaining to the Text, the obelus would have 
been fet at the head of thefe words, and the femi- 
circle at the clofe after the word >tj, which begins the 
eighth verfe; this would have been regular : but inr 
flead of placing the obelus in this manner Stephen 
has fet it in the middle of the verfe, the worll place 
he could have chofe. But to go on. 

The paflage of the three witnefTes in heaven 
ftands in the Body of the Text in this Edition j 
Whence came it there, or where did Stephen meet 
with it to give it that place, if it was in none of his ^ 
Manufcripts ? 'Tis anfwer'd, it was in the Co?nplU' 
ienfian Edition, that Stephen confulted that Edition 
and paid a great regard to its authority, and from 
thence took the paflage. If fo, Stephen was a very 
bad copier when he transfer'd it from the Complu- 
ten/tan Edition into his, for at the fame time he re- 
moved its fituation, he caus'd it to put on a new 
dvefs. In the Cmplutenjian Bible the Text of this 

verfe 



( 7i) 

treiTe ends with thefe words, cl r^elg «V '^ 'iv hci ; id 
Stepheji's New Teilament with thefe, ^loi ol r^Hg h 
«Vi' too different readings in fo few words, xto< for 
o:, and r^fTc 'i\ for T^e7? e<V i^ ^'v, make a very fenlible 
change. The lad above all is remarkable, tig ^ ev, 
for £y only. I would withal be inform'd^why i^/^/j/y^;? 
has obferv'd in the margin, that the Complutenfian 
Copy had «V t^' ev, as a circumftancc peculiar to that 
Edition, if the whole verfe was peculiar to it, and 
not found in any Manufcript. 'Tis a puzzling que- 
Ition, and not anfwer'd without difficulty. 

The difficulty will be render'd yet more infuper- 
able by the following obfervation. If this paftage 
of St. John had been only found in the Compluten- 
fian Bible, Stephen inftead of marking the place, as 
we have {tzw^ where that Edition differ'd from the 
Text, would have fee at the head of the whole paf- 
fage an obelus with thefe w^ords in the margin br 
sr^<r< , or the letter tjs by it felf , which fignifies the 
iiune thing, ^7lw h tco oc^ that is the paiTage is want- 
ing in all Copies, except the Complutenfian. This 
has been his method in feveral places: For indance;, 
in St. Mat. ch. \i. f 3f. the word Ko^pSiot,g of the 
heart has in the Text an obelus, and in the Margin 
we read bv z^^,ci^ 'jr^lu) bj -rCl y,^ i. e. "'tis wanting in all 
except in the manufcript >;, which is the eighth. In St. 
John^ ch. 3. -j^. If. the Text has the word Vjoum^ 
the Jews^ ^ in the margin is v/rote \^.^cu'>i a Jew^ isr, 
'sskIw $ cc ; i. e. the word l^^^i^^ is in all Manufcripts 
except in the Complutenfian Edition only, which has 
la^ouoov ^ in the plural number. 

If then Stephen had feen the paffage of St. John 
only in that Edition, if he had not found it in any 
of his ManufciiptS5 he would have faid as in other 
places, "'tis wanting in all^ except in the Compluten- 
fian Bible. The rcafon then why he has not done 
thus is becaufe he found it not in that Bible onlyj 
but fuv it alfo in the i\4anufcripts. 

Chap. 



(7^) 



Chap. XL 

Of the Codex Britannicus, or Mamijcrtpt 
m England, and of the Complutenfian 
Copy 

WE have feen in another place what Erafmus 
has faid , that the reafon of his inferting St* 
John's paflage into his third Edition of the New 
Teftament, was becaufe he had found it in a Manu- 
fcript o^ Englmd. He has given no other title to 
this Manufcript, than the indeterminate name of Ci?- 
dex Britannicus^ and under this name it has been e- 
ver cited by all the Learned Men, who have wrote 
upon the fubjed. 

The anonymous Engliflo writer treats this Manu- 
fcript as little lefs than fable ^ he fays none of his 
nation have mentioned it in their writings, nor is 
any one but Erafmus , who was a foreigner, faid to 
have feen it. Here then is a blot cad upon the can- 
dour of that Learned Man near two hundred years 
after his death : The charge comes fomewhat too 
late to take effed. 

Erafmus made profeffions of uprightnefs and fin- 
cerity in his quotations, and has been always looW 
on as a man not eafily apt to be imposed on by fuch 
fort of fa61:s, and uncapable to impofe upon others : 
His enemies and cenfurers, who were affuredly many 
in number, could not have wifh'd for any thing 
more defireable than to take him in a fault of this 
nature : But we have the lefs reafon to think he flipp'd 
in the ufe of the Codex Britannicus^ upon the fole 
authority whereof he fill'd up the void fpace of the 
feventh verfe, which was wanting in his two former 
Editions, becaufe he feems not to have been over- 
fond 

4 



(7i ) 

fond of the bufinefs himfelf, for he declares he did 
it purely to guard againfi calumny. We are not con- 
cerned to enquire further into this Manufcript, to 
know what is become of ir, or whether others have 
feen it befides Erafmus : A thoufand people may have 
read it without taking notice of it in print, or ha- 
ving occafion to mention it in their works. 1 know 
no Author, who fays he faw Falla's Manufcripts, 
or who knows where they are 5 does it therefore 
follow he had none ? I know of none but Beza^ 
who has fpoke o^ Stephen's Manufcripts, as having 
feen and compar'd 'em all : And if he had not com- 
menced, as he has done, upon the New Teftament, 
in all probability we ihould not have known they 
had pafs'd thro' his hands: But would it have been 
lefs true in fuch a cafe, that Stephen had thefe Ma- 
nufcripts, and that they contained the paflage of St. 
John? This would be to introduce a new kind of 
Scepticifm in Learning, which certainly cannot ;fuic 
with the tafle of the Learned, and I am perfuaded 
is not wholly agreeable to the Author of this Dif- 
fertation, who without defign may have given place 
to it. 

Mr. Simon had before him taken another method 
of ruining the authority of the Codex Britannicus. 
Far from fufpeding Erafmus had quoted it upon the 
credit of another perfon , he on the contrary afferts 
that ^Erafmus had feen it in England. All Mr. Si- 
mon has done is to refute Erafmus's opinion, that the 
place of this Manufcript concerning the palTageof St. 
John^ might have been corrected from iht Latin Co- 
pies ; Ex hoc Codice Britannico^ faid he in his Apo- 
logy againll Stunica^ and in his Annotations upon the 
New Teftament: repofuimus quod in noftris dicehatur 
deejfe : quamquam i3 hunc fufpicor ad Latinorum Co- 
dices fuijfe cajligatum. Mr. Simon for fcyeral good 



' Hiji, Crif, dn N, Tejiam. Tern. 3, furt, I. /. lo;. 

L reafons 



(74) 

reafons rejects this conjedure 5 but being unwilling 
to admit the pafTiige of the three wfcneires in hea- 
ven as St. John's genuine Text, he next enquires 
whence it could get into the Greek Manufcript ^. 
And here he imagines, 'twas taken from the Greek 
of the Council o£ Lateran-y as that Council had been 
tranflated into Greek out of the Latin its Original 
language, fo he derives it alfo from the Latin Bibles, 
tho* not in a right line indeed as Erafmus has done, 
yet indireftly and by way of a Greek Tranllation. 
What pains are taken to evade the truth ! 

Firft, here is nothing urg'd but a mere conjecture, 
the product of a flrong imagination ^ And muil his 
fancy be allow'd to ramble wherever he pleafes, and 
whatever conclufions he draws thence be allow'd of? 
And pray upon what elfe does Mr. Simon ground his 
opinion? Why, / ohferve^ ^ fays he, both in the one 
and the other Koy^ and -nv^^iKOL ha've no articles-, and 
*withal 1 read in both ^ Si^t 01 r^eTf, which feerns to 
ha've been tranflated from the Latin, 13 hi tres. 

Thefe lafl: words, hi tres, are not peculiar to the 
Council and the Codex Britannicus > they are the 
fame with the Text, as it ftands mR. Stephen's Ma- 
nufcripts : and for the omiflion of the articles before 
the words Koyog and srvdtr^iJt, 'tis fo flight a refem- 
blance, that 'twas not worth while to take notice of 
it in order to infer thence the paflage of the Codex 
Britannicus had been taken from the A6i:s of the 
Council : We fhall produce far more confiderable 
differences in proof of the contrary opinion to what 
M\\ Simon has advanc'd : And to make the matter 
plain to the eyes as well as to the underftanding, I 
ihall place on one fide the Greek of the Council of 
Lateran, held, as we have obferv'd above, in the year 
izif. as we find it in the CoUedion of Councils by 
F. F. Labbe and Cojfart 3 and on the other fide the 



a Dijfert, fur les Manufcrits, ^ Dijfett, fur Us Manufcrits. 

Greek 



(75) 

Greek of the Codex Britannicus^ taken from Erafmus'% 
Annotations upon the New Tellament. printed in 
if4i. page 802. 



The Greek of the Coun- 
cil. 



TJ^^? Greek of the Codex 
Britannicus. 









I. In the Greek of the Council the word il^vw 
is without an article : In the Codex Britannicus it has 
its article tw. 

z. In the Greek of the Council the word zst^tk)^ is 
with its article 0: But without an article in the Co' 
dex Britannicus* 

3. In the Greek of the Council^ the word -zsv^^ao^ 
'has its ordinary epithet ^^y^ov, the Holy Spirit : In 

the Codex Britannicus it ftands alone without olyiov^ 
the Spirit. This difference is confiderable. 

4. In the Greek of the Council we read ts-w*- in 
the Codex Britannicus Stvi. 

The Text is the fame in both as to fubflance : But 
thefe four differences, efpecially the third, are an e- 
vident proof the Greek of the Codex Britannicus was 
not copied from that of theiL^^^r^;^ Council, and by 
confequence that it was taken from fome other Greek 
Copy. 

What remains is to fee the manner this late Cri- 
tick attacks the Edition of Complutum. No one be- 
fore him ever doubted, that the paffage of St. John 
in that Edition was taken from fome of the Manu- 
fcripts Ximenes had recover'd from divers places. Mr. 
Simon is of another fentimcnt j he's of opinion Xi- 
menes had the authority of no Manufcript for that 
Textj and as if the matter was beyond difpute, he 

L 2, aflerts 



(76) 

aiTerts, * that the Cardinal finding this pafTage in the 
Latm Copies, and not in the Greek , took upon him 
to compofe a veiTe himfelf from the Preface to 
the Canonical Epiftles, which he beHev'd to be St. 
jferom^s. 

This is to ftretch the boldnefs of imagination as 
far as poffible, but the farther it goes, the more do 
J think I am oblig'd to follow it in order to expofe 
it> tho' of it felf it lies fufficiently open to ridicule. 
Mr. Simon has no proof for what he advances, and 
his whole notion is fo ill digefted, that he has not 
kept clofe even to probability. 

I , Ximenes was not the perfon who put out his 
Polyglott : He only fupply'd the Learned Men he 
had chofen for that great work with Manufcripts and 
printed Copies, and to them we owe the ftate that 
Book is in. So that fuppofing Ximenes could have^ 
entertained fo injudicious a thought as the modern 
Critick has imputed to him, all the Learned Men, 
who labour'd in the compiling his Bible, muil: have 
been no wifer than himfelf, to infert into the Origi- 
nal of the Epiftle a Text they had no where feen. 

2. This pafTage is not in fo many words in St. Je^ 
rom's Preface: He has only faid the Tranflators, 
whom he ftyles tmfaithfuj^ had omitted in their Ver- 
iion the teftimoriy of the Father^ the Word^ and the 
Holy Ghoft^ by ivhich the CathoUck Faith was highly 
fupported^ and the Unity of EJferue in the Father^ Son 
and the Holy Ghosl prov'd. Here is indeed the fub- 
ilance of the pafl'ige, but not the words: How then 
can we imagine, they were deriv'd from thence ? 

And what befides is very remarkable, the Complu- 
tenjian Edition does not teach, as do all others, and 
this very Preface, the Unity of EfTence in the three 
\t.x^o\Yz^ but the Lenity of their tellimony, for inftead 
of thefe words t^«? iv «V<, we read -v^^q eig ^ tv e^a-u 

»• Dijfcrt. fur Us Aianufcrus» 

Let 



( 77 ) 

Let us now come to the proofs taken from the 
Qreek Writers in defence of St. JohrC^ palTage. 



^ ■ ' 'V^wT f^t/V,^ «.AA<^ ^'sr«r K.^^^S« W\^>J 

Chap. XII. 

7hat this pcijfage has been quoted m two 
places m the Editions of St. Athana- 
fius'5 zvorks. 

IT has been urg'd withal againft the genuinenefs 
of this Text, that only the Latin Fathers have 
cited it, and not the Greek. I have elfcwhere fhewn, 
were this true, it would not thence Follow the paf- 
fage was forg'd : But there is much of miilake in 
the charge, and I ihall prove from two inftances, 
that this pafTage has been read and quoted by very 
ancient Greek Writers. 

Among the Works of St. Jthanaftus we have a 
Trad: entitul'd, A Synopfts of Holy Scripture. Some 
modern Criticks , Dr. Cave among the reft, in his 
Hiftoria Litteraria^ and F. Montfaucon in his Pal^o- 
logia Graca^ are of opinion this work is not St. ^- 
thanafius\'y Mr. Du Pin thinks it is, and defends it 
in his ^ Bibliotheque of Ecclefiaftical W^riters j how- 
ever all agree that 'tis very ancient. The name of 
Athanafius is of great weight, and yet an Author of 
meaner reputation is no lefs fit to be admitted in the 
citation of a paflage. The Text of St. John is not 
indeed in plain terms and by an exprels quotation 
alledg'd in the mention'd Synopfts : The nature and 
defign of that work would not allow of it : The 
Book it felf is but a fummary of the principal mat- 



^ Ariic, Athanaf. p. 40. c^ 5S. 

ters 
i 



(78) 

tcrs containVi in each Book of Holy Scripture, and 
this requires a good choice and nice diftinction. We 
have here an abridgment of the moil material mat- 
ters in St. John's firft Epiille, and in that abridg- 
ment we find thefe words : The Jpofile does here teach 
the Unity of the Son 'with the Father. 7'hefe words 
muft necefTarily allude to the paflage of the fifth 
Chapter, fince throughout the whole Epiftle St. 
yoh7i has in no other place taught the Unity of the 
Son with the Father. The word taught bears rela- 
tion to fome particular Text, and as it were points 
to it with a. finger: This Text then is, T'he Father j 
the Son J and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. 

It may be demanded, if the Author of the Symp- 
fis had this paHage in his view, why he faid ov\^ the 
Apoftk taught there the Unity of the Son with the Fa- 
ther ^ without mentioning the Unity of the Holy 
Gholl with the Father and the Son, fince that U- 
nity of the third perfon is no lefs exprefs'd in the 
Text of St. John^ than the Unity of the Father with 
the Son. To which I anfwer : 

I. It is the rule both of language and reafon to 
take v/hat an Author has faid, without being oblig'd 
to lliew why he confined himfelf to fay no more, 
when his fubjedl requir'd more. 

z. In the time this Abridgment of Scripture was 
wrote, the Unity of the Son vv'ith the Father was the 
chief point in difpute, againll the herefy of AriuSj 
who denied that Unity of nature. And hence I 
draw an Argument in defence of this Tra6t, which 
I have not obferv'd the writers, who hold it to be 
St. yithanafius^s^ to have been aware of 5 which is, 
that in jfthanafius's days the queilion concerning the 
unity or confubilantiality of the Holy Ghoil with 
the Father and the Son had not been debated : But 
more of this hereafter. And the matter being thus, 
*tis eafy to perceive why in this fummary of St. John's 
Epiftle 'tis only faid, the Jpoftle here teaches the Unity 

4 



(79) 

of the Son with the Father: Jthanafius and the other 
Orthodox Chriftians in the early Age of Arianifm 
had their minds wholly taken up with this Unity, 
and fcarce turn'd 'em to any other rubje61:. 

Among the works of the fame Athanafiiis we have 
befides a Difpute in form of a Dialogue, under the 
names of Athanafias and Arius. We might well con- 
tent our felves without placing it there, iince 'tis evi- 
dent Athanafiiis was not its Author. Whofe it is wc 
know not, but in my opinion a fault of the date in 
the title of this Difpute is fomewhat too feverely cri- 
ticised upon. 'Tis there faid this conference was had 
at Nice betwixt Athanafius and Arius^ during the 
fitting of the Nicene Council, in the year ^ lo. where- 
as that celebrated Council was not afTembled till the 
year ^if . But this error is fo grofs, that 'tis not 
poflible to conceive a man who wrote againft Aria- 
nifm could fall into't. In cafe the Compiler of the 
Trad wrote alfo the Title, we cannot in reafon look 
upon it otherwife than as want of attention and not 
ignorance, fince the meaneft perfon then alive was 
well enough informed of the time the Council fate in: 
nor will this conceffion be an excefs of complaifance, 
an over extenfive aft of Charity, to the Author of 
this Dialogue J tho' I much queilion whether he will 
ftand in need of fo fmall an indulgence in his favour. 
For we muft firft prove him the Author of the title, 
before we can charge this fault upon him> and that 
he was the Author of it can in no wife be infer'd 
from the Dialogue it felf j a thoufand examples may 
be given of titles prefixed to the works of the Anci- 
ents, which were not drawn up by the Writers them- 
felves i thefe have very often been afterwards added 
by a different hand, that finding the treatife without 
a title judg'd it convenient to make one. 

As to the piece; the perfon who composed it 
was allow'd to introduce what Interlocutors he 
thought proper 3 in almoft all Dialogues both anci- 

ent 



(8o) 

eiltand modern the Compilers have made ufe of feign'd 
names and borrow'd perfonagcs: 'tis a thing that's 
common. 

The Author of the Dialogue thought he could not 
in a more ufeful manner write againft Arianifm^ than 
by introducing on the one fide Arius^ the Author of 
that Herefy > and on the other Athanafius^ who was 
generally elleem'd as chief of the Orthodox party: 
and the rather, becaufe the real Athamfius had dif- 
puted at Nice with Arius in perfon, and giiin'd a Vi^ 
6lory over the Heretick. 

Dr. Cave expreffes a great diHike to this Dialogue 
and its Author, and calls it the work of fome doting 
Monk, cujufdam Monachi delirantis > the grounds of 
his opinion I'm unacquainted with, but am not afraid 
to aflert, that there's nothing throughout the whole 
difpute which agrees not with the tail, and manner 
of writing and reafoning in the fifth or fixth Century. 
Mr. Simon % who can't be thought partial in this af- 
fair, had the fame opinion, and has given a particular 
account of it, which fhews the efteem he had for it. 
He was then an Ecclefiaftical Writer, an honell Or- 
thodox Chriftian, who compos'd this work in Greek 
at the time the difpute with the Avians was hot in the 
Eaft. 'Tis herefaid: fl^e obtain remijjion of fins by 
Bapiifm^ in the form of which Baptifm are named the 
Father y the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft j and St. John 
hath faidy These three are one. Thefe Words 
of St. John are plac'd here as parallel with the words 
of inftitution in Baptifm \ as there the Father, Son 
and Holy Ghoft are nam'd j fo are the fame menti- 
on'd in the place of the Epiftle^ whence are taken the 
words, thefe three are one, 

'Tis granted) but to this two things are anfwer'd^ 
firft J that the Author of the Dialogue was a Latin 



» H'lfl, Cfit. de$ Comment, ch, 6. 

Writer, 



( 8i ) 

Writer, and not a Greek -y but the citation of thep.if- 
fiige by a Greek Writer and not a L^tin is vvhat*s de- 
manded. Secondly, that the words of the eighth 
verfe may here be as well alluded to, as the words of 
the feventh. We will clear up this matter a little. 
The reafon of the opinion that the writer of this 
Dialogue was a Latin and not a Greek is taken from 
the words ol r^eig TO iv etc-i^^ inllcad of ol r^esg iv bV/, 

as it is in St. John ; for 'tis pretended this to %v could 
never be an exprefHon of a Greek Author. And this 
anfwer is call'd a reply : tho' nothing fure could be 
more idly urg'd. 

The Dialogue in queflion is a pretty long difcourfe, 
all in Greek^ and for the fake of one poor little arti- 
cle, well or ill plac'd, its Author muff be concluded 
a Latin who took upon him to write in a foreign lan- 
guage. I own I have never met with fo critical a 
nicety before; but not to dwell upon trifles; The 
Greeks^ we know, have not always been fo exa6t in 
adding and omitting the articles, but that great varie- 
ty is often found in this affair; their books are here- 
in full of examples. If Inilances in the word %v be 
required, as that is the word we are upon, 'tis but 
to confult the fifth Chapter of the Epiftle to the Ro- 
mans^ and we fliall find it without an article in the 
12^^, 1(5 "^^ and 1 8^^^ verfes, and with an article in 
the If ^'^ and 17^^ The fame to %\> occurs in the firft 
Epiflle to the Corinthians^ Chap. xii. •^. 11. If a 
whole padiige in an approved Greek Author be de- 
manded, where all thefe words of the Dialogue, r^eig 
TO tv «V/. iland together, even this may be found in 
the Epiille of Dionvfius of Alexandria to Paul of Sa- 
mofata-y where Dionyftus^ or whoever was the x4.uthor 
of that Letter, fpeaking of the purification of lepers, 
makes it to conlilb ini three things, the water, the 
blood, and the Spirit, and then adds, d vc^? to 'iv c-ict. 

The other anfwer that's urg'd agalnlt the proof 
which the Dialogue betwixt Athanafius^ud Anus af- 

M fords 



( 8z ) 

fords us is not, like the foregoing, a tdfle in language^ 
it ftrikes home to the point, but glances only on the 
left fide, and touches it not. The words, ol r^^gtv- ^<riy 
thefe three are one^ fay they, may allude to the eighth 
verfe, as well as the feventh. This argument might 
have been probable, if the Dialogue had been wrote 
in Latin^ becaufe in the Latin Bibles at the end of 
both the feventh and eighth verfes we read, hi tres 
uniim funt'y but the cafe is ocherwife with the Greek -y 
for there is no Greek Copy that has in the eighth 
verfe tv «(ri, or to tv e<V/, but we read in all «V to sV stVr 
and thus are they cited by S. Cyril in his Thefaurus^ 
and by Oeciimenius in his Commentary. 

Add to this, that the citation of the words has re- 
gard, as I have above obferv'd, not merely to the 
perfons of the Holy Trinity alone, but refpecSts with- 
aj their proper and perfonal names of Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghofl, in like manner as in the inftitution 
of Baptifm j but this agrees not with the eighth verfe, 
where we read no names but thcfpirit^ the water and 
the blood. 



Chap. XIIL 

That the Greek Church receives the Text 
of the three wttnejfes in heaven as au- 
thentich 

I Have prov'd in the preceding Chapter the pafiagc 
to have been feen and quoted by very ancient Ec- 
clefiaftical Writers among the Greeks ; I ihall now 
fliew, that 'tis yet retained in the Greek Church with 
the iiamp of divine authority upon it. 

We 



( 83 ) 

We can have no furer argument than what is ta- 
ken from the ConfcfTions of Faith and publick Ri- 
tuals of this Church j thefe are records not to be con- 
telled in an affair of this nature. 

Dr. I'. Smithy a very learned EngVijiyman^ has a fmall 
trad: upon the fubje6t againll Mr. Simon^ wherein he 
gives him the very words of the Greek ConO^fTion, fo 
far as relates to this paffagc. I fhall thus tranilate 'em ; 
^he Father , the Son^ and the Holy Ghofi are all three 
of one and the fame Effence^ according to the words of 
the Evangelift St, ]ohn; l!bere are three that hear re- 
cord in hea'ven^ the Father^ the Word ^ and the Holy 
Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. 

Againll a declaration fo exprefs, two things only 
can be urg'd. i. That 'tis but of late yeans the 
Greek Churches have receiv'd this pafTage as authen- 
tick : And z. they have follow'd the Latins^ and taken 
it from their Bibles. Both thefe objections would be 
of weight, could they be prov'd i but proof is want- 
ing to them both. 

The paffage occurs in the Confeilion oiih^ Greeks-, 
the fact is certain j well, but fay they, the Greeks 
v%^ho now receive this pafTage as St. John's^ have not 
always receiv'd it as fuch j how does that appear ? I 
beg they would fhew where the Greeks have made 
fuch a declaration? but this alas! is impoffible. 

For want of proof they come to reafoning, and tell 
us, the Text was anciently unknown to the Greeks^ 
and urge as a proof of its being unknown, that they 
have never quoted it. And I anfwer, that it might 
have been known to them, without our knowing 
they had ever quoted it, for all their v/rirings are 
not come to our hands 5 but befidcs the affertion is 
falfe in fa^t, and I have given initanccs of its being 
quoted by Greek writers. 

To their reafoning I oppofe mine in my turn, tho' 
of different Evidence, and quite another force. When 
a particular Writer omits in his Book a Text of Scrip- 

M z turc 



(H) 

ture, t:Ii«it would yet be of Service to him 5 either he 
might perhaps not think of it, or having urg'd others, 
not judge it necefTary to charge his work with a grea- 
ter number of pafTages : But can it poffibly be ima- 
gined , or allcdg'd with any appearance of truth, 
that the Churches of a large countrey would draw 
up a Confeflion of Faith, the moll folemn ad of their 
religion, and infert in it upon the mofl fundamental 
article a Text of Scripture the Fathers of that Church 
had been wholly unacquainted with ? I appeal to thefe 
Gentlemen as Judges, who at firll: view, and with- 
out due confideration have believ'd the pafTage quo- 
ted in the Confeflion of Faith drawn up by the Greek 
Churches was anciently unknown to 'em. 

The fecond argument urg'd againil the proof taken 
from this venerable record is no kk conjectural than 
the former ; to wit, that the Greeks have borrow'd 
the pafHige from the Latm Church. For here again 
I ask. What proof have they of it ? In what Book, 
what Work, have the Gwy^^declar'd it? Ifbareima- 
gmation is held fufficient to ground a matter of faft 
upon, and we conceive by that means to difentangle 
our felves from difficulties, there is nothing fo intri- 
cate which we may not with eafe in fuch a manner 
infallibly get rid of j but the misfortune is, this me- 
thod has never yet been approv'd by reafon 

Befldes, for thefe 800 years lad pad the Greek 
Church has not had that union and conformity with 
th^Latm as was necefTary for the borrowing thence 
a Text to be found only in the Z^//;^ Churches. Vp^ 
on Era/mm s fimple conjcaure that the paflage of S^t. 
Jo/M in the MS. of E.gla.d might have been taken ; 
fwm the Lan^ Ux.Stmon has wrote againflhim on i 
the fubjea, and urg'd very good arguments upon that 

nfl'/ M '"^^l ^^'^''' f"^' ^'^^^^T «^ ^^^^ Text 
of thcNewTeftamenti the reafons he there produ- 
ces^^are ours, and of the fame weight m the prefent 

k From 



(8j ) 

From the Confeflion of Faith of thcGreek Church, 
I come now to its Rituals, or Publick-Service Books. 
Jf in a Chriftian Communion there be any Books, any 
Writings, befidcs their ConfefTion of Faith, of au- 
thority in that Communion, thefe are the Pubhck- 
Seivice Books, for they are us'd upon all Holydays 
throughout the year j in thefe Rituals a particular of- 
fice is fct apart for each Feilival, which is read upon 
the Day in a full Aflembly. The Latin Church has 
the like Rituals, and the Gr^^/C- Church alfo theirs, 
and according to ^ Leo u^ilatius's obfervation, in grea^ 
ter abundance. 

Among thefe Rituals or Publick-fervice Books there 
is one cnritul'd AttcVcAo^, the Jpofilc^ as being a Colle- 
6lion of divers paflliges out of the Epiftles of the Ho- 
ly Apoftles, each appointed to be read in the proper 
Office of the Day. The Text of the three witnefles 
in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofl: 
is inferted into this Ritual, to be read upon the fifth 
day of the thirty fifth week 5 as we learn from ^ S^/- 
den in his Book de Synedriis. Mr. Simon does not de- 
ny it j The Greeks, fays he, do all at this day read the 
-pajfage in their pihlick-fervice Book entitiiVd AttcVoAc^, 
as well as the Latins. Selden obferves the cuflom to 
be very ancient, but Mr. Simon feems willing to have 
us believe it's very modern, by faying the Greeks at 
this day read the pafTage. If that was his thought, I 
fee no caufe he has to glory in it > for if this Text 
has of late been inferted into the Ritual , which is 
very ancient, 'tis plain the Greeks thought it was 
wanting there, and deferved to be added. But this 
they never could have thought, if the words had not 
been in the New Teflament of the Greek Churches. 

I have therefore faid this Ritual is very ancient, be- 
caufe it is at lead as old as the fifth Century. Cyril 
of Scythopolis in PaUJiine^ who liv'd at the beginning 

a Dr. Cave m Jf^end, ad Hijl, Lit, ^ Lib, z. ch. 4. art.41 

of 



( 80 

of the fixth Century, has mention'd it in the Life of 
^ St. Sahas^ who was born in the year 4^9. and he 
fliys, ^ that in order to be made a Reader in the 
Church oi Scythopolis ^ he was oblig'd to learn the 
Pfalter and the Book entituPd Jpofiolos. We read 
alfo in the ancient Pontifical of the Greek Church, 
publilh'd by Hahertus Bifhop of Vahres^ in Rouergue^ 
in the chapter concerning the ordination of Chaniors 
and Readers, that when the Patriarch ordain'd a Rea- 
der, he caus'd him to read the Jpoftolick Bock 5 up- 
on which Hahertus makes this remark 5 This Book iz 
the Office called Apollo] os. 

The fame thing is yet feen in the Euchologium of 
the Greeks^ another Book of great antiquity, *= lince 
as Leo Jllatius tell us, there is extant at Rome in the 
Barberine Library a MS. of it near a thoufind years 
old. In the Euchologium what occurs to our purpofe 
IS the following paflagej To the per [on who is to be 
ordain'' d a Reader is prefented the Book , wherein are 
contain d the AEis of the Apo files , and their Epiftlcs , 
and after he has read it in fever al places , the Bifhop 
takes back the Bock out of his hand^ and gives him the 
hlefjing. 

1 here end the firil part of my DifTertation. I pro- 
pofed herein to cilabHfh the genuinenefs of theText 
concerning the three witneiles in Heaven, and I dare 
flatter my icif with having fet it in fo great a light, 
that every one, who will but a little open his eyes, 
can't avoid feeing it. What can, in ihort, be de- 
manded in order to convince men the paflage is ge- 
nuine? Would they, that I llaould from age to age 
produce mofl ancient, grave and renowned Dodors, 
who have quoted it in their Writings? I have done 
it j and from all partsof the L.^i^/;^ world have fliewn 
it either in their Bibles or citations of the Text. Do. 



a Cav. Hlfl. Lit. b Coteler. Mon. Ecclef Gru. T. 3. 

« JFabnt. Biblioth, Gru. lib. 5. 

they 



( 87 ) 

they require the Eaft iliould furniih me with it in the 
original Langiinge of Si. John's EpilHe? The Greek 
MSS. have not been wanting to nie in this affair. Is 
it expeded, I fliould allcdge arguments, from whence 
it may appear the Text has not been pafs'd over in fi- 
]ence by Greek Writers of ages far remote from ours? 
Why, thefe I have urg'd. Do they in fine infid 
upon afTurances, that the Greek Church in thefe later 
Ages has acknowledged the pafTage to be the Apollles, 
whofe name it bears j and that in fo doing that Church 
folio w'd only the example cf her Anceftors, from 
whom fhe deriv'd her Original ? Her Confeffions of 
Faith and moil ancient Rituals afford us full afTuran- 
ces hereof. 

So many proofs upon aqueflion of fa6b, and almofl 
all of a different kind, which after having rendred 
every one their teilimony apart reunite together, and 
dirc&ly aim at the lame fcope, are an ample demon- 
llration of the genuinenefs of St. John's paflage. But 
that I may leave no manner of doubt behind me, I 
fhall now examine ail that has hitherto been found ouE 
of force againil its authenticknefs. 




ijiit 



(88) 




Part the Second. 

In which are anfiperd the moft 
material OljeBions againft 
the Text in difpute. 



Chap. I, 



The firfi ohjeB'ion : This pcijfcige ts not In 
the Greek Manufcr'tpts ^ nor Oriental 
Verfions of the New Tejiament. 



'%l 






N the eighth chapter oF the firll part, I 
have urg'd fuch convincing proofs againft 
theObjedion drawn from the Grepk MSS. 
that 'tis but to run over that chapter to 
to difcover the whole weaknefs of the Ar-* 
gument. 

The Grounds of it are entirely thefe^, that the 
words of the feventh verfe are not found in divers 
MSS. in England^ France^ and Italy 5 and tho' ex- 
cept two only, the oldeft MSS. we have, reach not 
beyond the eleventh or tenth Century, 'tis maintain'd 

that 



( 8? ) 

that the pafTage of St. John not beirig found there^ 
it has not been in the Manufcripts more ancient, and 
from a particular account that's made of their num- 
ber an univerlal conclufion is drawn, and we are told, 
it therefore never was in any. 

This reafoning in Logick is C2i\Vdi^ paralogijm^onc 
of the Sophifms ab infufficienti eniimeratione^ wherein 
an univerfal conclufion is made from the enumerati- 
on of fome particulars, in a cafe where one fole par- 
ticular omitted deftroys the whole conclufion. 

This objeaion offends yet in another refped againlt 
the rules of righc reafoning: Such and fuch a paflage 
is not at this Jay found in any of the Manufcripts 
that have been convey'd down to our times, there- 
fore it never was in the more ancient Copies that are 
loft. To conclude in this manner, we ought to fhew 
that thefe particular paffages were not in the old Ita- 
Jick Verfion, nor in the Vulgar Bible of St. Jerom^ 
nor in the Writings of the Fathers, nor any where 
clfej but Mr. Dn Pin and F. le Long are of opinion, 
there are Manufcripts of the Sacred Books older than 
that Age. The arguments taken from the form of 
the letters, and manner of writing Greek withouc 
fpirits and accents, are two of the bell proofs al- 
ledg'd for the antiquity of thefe Manuicnptsj buc 
thefe reafons are of no force to ihew a Manufcripc 
is of the fourth or fifth Century, rather than of the 
fixth or feventh. I know no man \n Europe mox^skiWd 
in thefe matters, and who deferves more to be rely'd on 
than F. Montfaucon. He has feen and examin'd every 
thing of greateft value in the Libraries of /r^/?^^ and 
Italy-y but he gives us in the Journal of his Travels 
into Italy^ in the PaUoJogia Gr^ca^ and in the Cata- 
logue of the famous Chancellor Segmer's mod ex- 
cellent Library, commonly call'd i\\c Library of Coaf^ 
tin^ as being in poffeflion of the Marquis of that name> 
he gives us, 1 fay, 1 know now not how many in- 
ilances of the Gr^^^ Manufcripts wrote in the fame 

>^ manner 



manner with the Alexandrian and Vatican^ which are 
neverthelefs fome of the fixth Century, others of the 
feventh, and fome of the ninth. And fo perhaps the 
two Manufcripts that are reputed fo ancient, majr 
not be above {tYcn or eight hundred years old . But fup- 
pofe they were more, we can't conclude becaufe they 
have not St. John's pafiage, that it was not in his E- 
piftle when thofe Manufcripts were wrote, for then 
the fame conclufion ought to take place Vvnth regard 
to other pafTages that are wanting in them : Dr, Mills 
has taken notice of a great many of 'em, and we fhall 
felefl: a few. 

In St. Jobn^ ch. 8. f. i, [^c. the hiilory of the 
woman taken in adultery is omitted in the Fatican^ 
Manufcript. 

In the eighth chap, of the jl5is^ the 37^^ verfe is 
entirely wanting in the Alexandrian iVlanufcript. 

Rom. 8.1. the words, hit after the Sprit ^ are not 
in the Manufcript of Alexandria^ nor in fome others. 

Rom. p. 4. thefe words, of whom is the adoption^ 
and what follows to the fifth verfe are wanting in the 
Manufcript o£ Alexandria. 

In the firft Epiftle of St. Peter^ ch. 4. f 14. on their 
fart he is evil fpoken of^ 6cc. is all wanting in the fame 
Manufcript, and in feveral others. 

In the firft Epiflle of St. John^ ch. 4. f. 5. thefe 
words, Chriji is come in the flejh^ are not found ei-* 
ther in the Alexandrian Manufcript, or the Fatl^ 
cah 

' In the eighth verfe of the fifth chapter the wordsy 
'»,, earthy are omitted both in the Vatican and Akx*^ 
andrian Manufcripts. 

How then can we depend upon the want of the 
Text concerning the witnefles in heaven in thefe twa 
Manufcripts, of all the moft reputed, and in feveral 
others not fo ancient ; We ought certainly to look 
upon it as one of the omiffions which have crept into 

thefe 



thck Copies tbro' the fault of the tranfcnbers, as I 
have elfewhere obferv'd. 

To thefe omilTions in the Greek Manufcripts are 
joyn'd the Oriental Verfions, Vhich have not this 
paffage 5 but we have the fame anfwer to make in 
this affair, namely, that all thefe Verfions are defe- 
ctive in many other Texts which are undoubtedly ge- 
nuine. 

The moft ancient of all is the Syriack > 'tis not 
known in what age 'twas compos'd, but 'tis moft 
certain the Italick Verfion which has the paffage of 
St. Jobn^ was made before it. The common opinion 
is^ that this Tranilation into Syriack is as old as the 
fourth or fifth Century, and Mr. Du Pin ^ thinks ic 
yet older; but at that time the paffage of Si. John 
was in the Copies o'l tho. Latin Bibles, and quoted in 
the writings of Divines. 

Befidcs, this Syriack Verfion is full of faults, and 
efpecially of omiifions. Beza has given abundance of 
inllances in his Annotations upon the New Teflament, 
and we could add thereto a great many others, if 
there was occafion j I fhall give only fome few, and 
thefe in whole Texts. 

InSi.jQhn ch. 14. J. and 16. 14. Atls%. 37. and ||f. 
34. and 18, 19. the words, after the Sprit ^ Rom, cS. i. 
and ihofe of St, Peter i Ep.ch.4. 14. arc wanting al- 
fo ; a more particular account would be tedious. 

The other Oriental Verfions have been made from 
the Syriack^ as Mr. Du Pin has obferv'd in his preh- 
minary Differtation upon the Bible, ^ and for- this 
caufe we here meet with the fame omifiions as -Vthe 
Syriack. 

The Verfion, which is faid to be more ancient than 
the Syriack.^ is the Coptick or Egyptian. Mr. Du Pin 
has obferv'd in the fecond §. of the fame chapter, that 
we have no Edition of the New "Tcft anient in thctt Ian' 

I Dijjerc. Prelijn, far la Bible. 1. 2. ch. 4. ^ ibid. p. 81. 



gtmge^ hut that there are Mann fcripts of it in the French 
^King's Library. We are fince indebted to Mr. /Fi/- 
kins for a very fine Bdition he publiih'd at Oxford a^- 
bout the end of the year iji6. with ^ Latin Tranfla- 
tion. The omiflions of Texts are here very nume- 
rous} 1 ihall mention f 'me: Matt, f . 44. and 20. 22, 
23. and 18. I. and 27. 7,^. Marc. j. i(5. and 11. 26. 
jl5ls 8. 37. and 24. 7, t^c. 

The Perfian Trandv.tion is not look'd on as anci^ 
ent, and being made, as Mr. Simon ^ fays, not from 
the Greek^ but from the Syriack j 'tis no wonder we 
find there many omiflions. 

The Ethiopick Verfion is yet more charg'd with 
faults, and Icfs -^Heem'd than the refl. 

As for x.\\f^ Armenian; that has the pafTage of St. 
John : This was printed at Amfterdam by the care of 
Ufcan^ an Armenian Bifliop, who in a Council of his 
own Nation held in \66^. was commifTion'd to come 
into Europe to print the Bjbie m their language. Mr. 
Simon^ who was acquainted with the Biihop at Paris^ 
fays this Bible could not bur he very exa61:, ^ becaufe the 
BijJoop who was an able and judicious man^ had brought 
ivith him good Mamifcripr Cofies^ which he faithfully 
fmow^d^ and this (fays Mr. Simon) I learnt from the 
Bijhup's own mouth. A certain Armenian^ nam'd Ni- 
con^ put out a Book entitled, De pejjimorum Armenio- 
rum pejjlmd Religione^ where he accufes 'em of having 
adjdtd fevers: pillages to their Bibles not originally in 
'em, -c^nd in(tanccs m the 45^. and 44^^ verfcs of the 
ZZ^ chap, or St. Liike^ and divers others : but the 
paflagc of St. fohn\ Epiilie has no mark fet upon it : 
all this is copied from the 24^'^ Epillle of Mr. Simon 
in the fourth Volume of his Bibliotheque Critique^ or 
Lettrcs Choijieu But at he has not faid the pafTage 
o^ St. John was of the number of thofe, which Nicon 



a Hifi. des VerfionSf ch. 3Z. 
fc Hift. Cnt. des Verfions, ch, I'j, 

accufes 



( 93 ) 

aceufes the Jrmenians of having added to their Bibles, 
which is a furc token that it anciently flood as it does 
now. 

With regard to the Arahick Verfion, I fhall con- 
tent my felf with the judgment Mr. Simon has pafs'd 
upon it in the fecond Book of the fifteenth Chapter 
of theHiflory of the Verfions of the OldTeftament: 
/» general^ fays he, the Arabick 7'ranjlations of the 
Scripture are of no great authority^ for they are not an- 
cienty and for the moft part are made from the Syriack, 
"with a great deal of negligence . Why then were they 
not left there, and not oppos'd againft the pafTage of 
Si.John^ which is wanting in thofe Verfions ? 

Chap. II. 

The fecond Ohjecikn-^ that the pajfage of 
St. John was not known to the Fathers 
of the Councils of Nice and Sardica. 

AConfiderable argument againfl this pafTage is 
pretended to be drawn from its not being ci- 
ted by the two Councils, wherein Arius's herefy was 
folemnly condemned. But we ought to know, that 
the Trinity of thePerfons in the Godhead, as taught 
by St. John^ was not properly the fubjecl debated in 
thofe Councils. Aritis confin'd himfelf to the Son's 
Divinity, nor was the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft 
yet brought into queftion or oppos'd by AriuSy this 
happen'd not 'till a long time after, and when the 
Eunomians and Macedonians ^ hereticks fo nam'd from 
the chief of their Sefts, Eummius and Macedonius^ 
had added to the Axian impiety^ the denial of the 

Holjr 



( 94 ) 

Holy Ghoft's divinity : and hence were they callM 
Pneum(itomachi^ which is being interpreted, enemies 
of the Spirit', as we learn from the Ecclcfiallical Hi- 
ilory of Socrates^ Book i. chap. 3. This is an Hi- 
lliorical Fad that's undeniable 3 and from hence has 
Mr. Simon^ and before him Cardinal Baronius^ drawn 
a very excellent argument to fliew the Difpute be- 
twixt Athanaftus and Arius^ of which we have fpo- 
Icen above, did not pafs at the Council of Nice^ be- 
caufe, fay they, the Author of that Tra6t has taken 
much pains to prove againfl the Avian the Divinity 
of the Holy Gholl:, which at the time of tha{ Coun- 
cil had not been difputed, 

As to the Ads of the Nicene Council, they are 
only decifions and ordinances, without any Text of 
Scripture. The Creed it felf, which contains the 
Faith of the Church, dwells chiefly upon the per- 
fon of the Son, and has but one word concerning 
the Holy Ghoft, and no exprefs citation from Holy 
Scripture. 

They urge farther, that Bifhop Alexander has not 
quoted it. in the Epiftle he wrote to the Bifhops of 
the Eaft upon the Subjed o^Arius : It is true, but he 
has pais'd over withal the words of Baptifmal InlH- 
tution, In the name of the Father^ the Son^ and the Ho- 
ly Ghoft. This Text, with the Text of St. John are 
both exprefs for the dodrine of the Trinity ^ but this 
dodrinc, as I have faid, was not concern'd in the 
difpute with Ayius, 

As to fome other pieces, which are given out to 
belong to the Council of Nice^ fuch as are certain 
Difputes of the Billiops with the Pagan Philofophers, 
thele are mere Fables invented by one Gdafius of 6>- 
zicum^ many Ages after the Council was held, and re- 
ceived as fuch by all the Learned : I iliall reil fuis- 
fy'd with giving upon this head the judgment of 
Mr. Du Pin^ in the article of Gelafius : " 'Thefe Dif- 
putes, fays he, " of the Philofophers concerning the 

"Divi- 



(95 ) 

" Divinity of the Holy Ghoft are a mere fiftion, and 
" it IS CERTAIN the queftion of the Holy Ghofl's 
*' Divinity was not debated in the Council of 
" Nice. 

The argument taken from the Synodical Epiflle of 
the Council of Sardica^ held twenty two years after 
ihc Nicene^ is not more conclufive. In this Epifllc 
we find cited the pafTage of the Evangehd; Si.JoJmj 
I and my Father are one^ but the paiTiige which 
fpeaketh of the Father, Son and Holy Ghofl, that 
thefe three are one^ is not found there. But here 
the cafe is the fime, as in the Council o? Nice^ the 
matter debated by this Council, was flridly the Di- 
vinity of the Soa only, not the Trinity in ge- 
neral. 

'Tis withal a miftake to attribute that part of the 
Letter from whence this Objedlion is taken, to the 
Council Q^ S-ardica > 'tis an addition made by fome o- 
ther perfon, and is no where read but in * Theodoret. 
Wc have this Synodical Epiflle among the Coun- 
cils, in the Apology of St. Athanafius^ and in St. 
Hilary^ but the lafl part is wanting in 'em all : So 
that Baronius has reje6ted it as a forgery in his iVn- 
nals of the year 347. 

And thus the mighty noife, which has been rais'^d 
againfl the paflage in difpute, that 'twas unknown 
to the Fathers of thefe famous Councils, has no real 
foundation, and is of no ufe but by the authority of 
great names to impofe upon fuch perfons, as are not 
in a condition, or unwiUing to give themfelves the 
trouble, of unravelling all thefe points of Hiflory. 

> Hi/?. EQde[, lib. z. ch. 8. 

4 Chap, 



(pO 



Chap. III. 

The third Obje'ciion ^ this pajfage has not 
been cited by the Greek Fathers y nor 
by the Latines of the fir ft Ages. 

THIS objeftion is fet out and enlarg'd with a 
long lift of the moft pompous names of Anti- 
quity, Clement oi Alexandria^ Si. Athanaftus^ St. Cj/- 
r/7, St. Baftl^ on the fide of the Greeks:, St. Hilaryy 
St. Jerom^ St. Aiiguftin^ Lucifer^ Cefarius^ and I know 
not how many others on the part of the Latins 5 fbr 
what can be more eafie than to furnifh out a Cata- 
logue of Authors, who have not fpoke of one par- 
ticular thing s the bufinefs might have been ftretch'd 
out to infinity. 

But I would here demand of thefe Gentlemen, 
who fo loudly boaft of this their Catalogue, that 
they would be pleas'd to tell me, whether in cafe a 
paiTage is not found quoted by the Greeks^ which yet 
occurs in the writings of the Latins., they would 
look upon it as fuppofititious. For example, if St^ 
Hilary , St. Jerome^ St- Auguftine have urg'd a paf- 
fage, which St. Athanafius^ St. Cyril^ and St. Bafd 
"with others of the Greeks have made no mention of 
in thofe works of theirs we have remaining, muft 
we rejed the paflage as a forgery? according to their 
way of reafoning we multj tho* reafon will nevet 
fubmit to fuch a deciiion, the abfurdity whereof 
is very apparent. Let us fuppofe then, if they re- 
quire it, that the paffage of St. John has been quoted 
by no Greek Writer extant, that Athanaftus^ Cyril and 
Baftl have made no mention of it > they may yet have 
urg'd it in other treatifes different from thofe which 
have come to our hands, for 'tis well known we 

have 



(97) 

have not all their works ; and as to thofe we at pre- 
lent have, this pafTage might not come into their Au- 
thor's mind, whilft they were writing, anymore thari 
feveral others, which were no lels to their purpofe, 
as I ihall fhew in the fequel : But TcrtulUan who is 
more ancient than all thefe Greek Writers, has hint- 
ed at it in one of his Books > St. Cyprian has ex- 
preflly quoted it; St. Jerome has fpoke of it in his 
Proem upon the feven Canonical Epillles, he has gi- 
ven it a place in his Bible, or rather he has left it as he 
found it in the old Italick Bible j St. Eucherius has pro- 
duc'd it J St. Figilius^ St. Fulgentius^ a multitude of 
pious and holy Bifhops have urg'd it as the Bulwark 
of Orthodoxy againll the Jriam of the fifth Centu- 
ry : The fad: is certain, I have pro'/M it 5 what then 
can be alledg'd again ft the confequence ? Erafmus in 
his difpute with Edward Ley lays it down as a good 
rule in Criticifm, that the confentient voices of the 
ancient Latin Fathers are fufficient to eftablifh the 
authenticknefs of a Text of Scripture, tho' it be 
wanting in the Greek manufcripts> now how much 
more fufficient muft they be, in the cafe of compa- 
ring a quotation made by the Latin Fathers with the 
bare filence of the Greeks ? But to come to par- 
ticulars. 

I have fiiid, that it follows not Jl pafTage wasn't in 
the Bibles of the Fathers, whether Greek or Latin^ 
from their not having quoted it in fuch places of 
their works, where it would have been to their pur- 
pofe 5 fince it might have been urg'd in the works of 
others which we now have, or in works which have 
perifli'd in the ruines of time: This will appear from 
the following inllances. 

Clement of Alexandria has fpoken of the Trinity % 
but has no where produc'd the w^ords of Baptifmal 
Inflitution, in the name of the Father^ the Son^ and 
the Holy GhoH. 

O AUaander 



( 98 ) 

Alexander Bifliop of Alexandria^ has withal not 
brought 'cm into his Epiftle againil-^mjf. 

Eufehiiis oi Cafarea wrote a Trad againfl; the Sa- 
hellians extant in the fourth Volume of the Bihlio- 
thee a Maxima Patrum^ wherein he difcourfes of the 
Trinity, and of each perfon in the Godhead didinft- 
ly, without taking the lead notice of the Text con- 
cerning Baptifm. 

Epiphanius in his ^7^^ hcrefy againil: the Noetians^ 
defends the myftery of the Trinity, and makes no 
ufe of this pafTage fo exprefs, fo decifive, of the 
Baptifmal Inilitution. He has alfo omitted it in his 
6f*^ herefy againft Paul of Samofata. If w-e had 
only thefe parts of his works remaining, Ihould v/e 
not believe this Text of Baptifm was unknown to 
him, Unce he iirg'd it not upon occalions, wherein 
'twas fo natural to have us'd it?. 

St. Gregory Nazianzen has made an excellent Dif- 
fertation in proof of the Son's equahty with the Fa- 
ther againft the Avians^ he produces there divers 
Texts of Scripture, and among thefe the very words 
immediately following the inilitution of Baptifm, / 
"will he 'With you always even to the end of the world^ 
and omits this Text which is fo clear in the point. 
Baptizing them in the name of the Father^ 6cc. 

'jitus^ Bifhop o^ Bo fir a in Arabia^ one of thofe 
"whofe iilence is urg'd againfl: the Paflage of St. John^ 
compos'd a Book in defence of the Trinity, and the 
eternal generation of the Son, without alledging the 
Text of Baptifm, or that other v^zx^^ famous one 
which was continually in the mouth of the Ortho- 
dox, / and my Father are one, 

Phoebadius Bifhop of Agen^ is alfo one of the An- 
cients, whofe iilence is thought to be of advantage 
in the affair. He has urg'd a great number of paf- 
fages out of the New 1 eilament againfl: the Arian 
herefy, but has no wheie quoted the Text concern- 
ing Baptifm. 

Cerealis 



(99) 

Cerealis was one of the pious African Bifhops, who 
rubfcrib'd to the paflagc of St. John in the Confeflion 
of Faith drawn up in Hunerick's days: He wrote a 
Book againil the Jrian nam'd Maximin^ and has no 
where cited in it St. John\ padage : Who would 
not have expelled to have found it there? 

Vigiliiis of ^apfum^ who has wrote fo much againfl: 
the feme Hcreticks, and fo often urg'd the authori- 
ty of this paflage, compil'd under the borrow'd name 
oi Aiigiiflin^ a Dialogue printed among St. Auguftin's 
Works in the eighth Volume of the beautiful Edi- 
tion of the Benedidine Monks of St. Maur^ where- 
in he introduces St. Auguftin difputing with an Avian 
nam'd Felicianus , and no where alledges St. John's 
paflage. 

St. Fiilgentins^ as we have feen, hath divers times 
made ufe of it in his works 5 yet we have one in- 
fcrib'd to the Emperor Thraftmond^ an Arian and 
Perfecutor which has it not. He made befides a Trea- 
tife concerning the Faith^ where he proves the Trinity 
by divers Texts of Scripture, without taking the 
lead notice of the paffage in St. John's Epiftle. 

Ifofallthefe Bilhops, Si^FiilgLntiiis^ St. Figilius^ 
and Cerealis^ we had no other works remaining than 
thofe I have juft now mentioned, fhould we not fay it 
was im.poffibie for thefeholy Do61:ors not to have pro- 
duc'd in their Difputes againft the Antitrinitarian Do- 
drine a Text fo exprefs as that of the three WitnefTes 
in Heaven, if it had been in the Epiftle of St. John? 
One might as well draw this confequence from them 
as from all the other ancient Fathers whatfoever j 
and yet the confequence would be null -, it would a- 
mount to no more than a conjedturc, a fpecious ap- 
pearance of reafon at the beft, and by no means con- 
clufive : So jufl is ^ Mx. Simon in his obfervation, that 
we reafon to little purpofe concerning fa^s by urging ^- 



Dljfert. fur les Manufcrits. p. ts- 



( loo ) 

galnft 'em confequences to prove \m impoffiMe^ if on the 
other hand we have certain and evident proof that they 
are real But what proof more certain and evident 
can we have to fhew the Text of the three Wit- 
nefles, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, 
was in the Bibles of the Ancients who have not ci- 
ted it in fome of their Writings, than the quotations 
made of it by Divines of therr time, and by them- 
felves in other Works ? 



Chap. IV. 

^he fourth Oh] eB ion: Some of the ancient 
Fathers have quoted the (5th a.nd 8 th 
Verfes of the jth Chapter of St. john'5 
Epifile^ but have taken no notice of 
the 7th. 

THIS Objedion is apt to furprize at fir ft fight j 
but before I difcover the fallacy of it, 1 fiiall 
here make one general obfervation concerning the 
true nature of citations of Texts of Holy Scripture 
in the writings of Divines. 

'Tis moil certain, that the more regular and ju- 
dicious a citation is, the lefs it takes in of fuch mat- 
ters as do not peculiarly belong to it 5 every thing 
elfe ferves only to perplex the affair, and whoever 
underftands well the art of arguing and writing draws 
this rule into his pradice j a thoufand inftances may 
be produced to fhew the ancient Fathers have ordi- 
narily followed this method. Againft th? Text in 
gueilion are urg'd firll the Greek Fathers and then 
the Lati7is, 

The 



( loi ) 

The firft inftance taken from the Greeks is the 
pretended Epiftle of St. Dionyfius oi Alexandria to 
Paid of Samofata \ extant in the firft Volume of the 
Bibliotheca Patrum. 'Twould be of no moment to 
prove this to be none of St. Dtonyfius'%^ others have 
obferv'd it long ago \ tho' indeed the Letter is very 
ancient : 'Tis there faid, we are regenerated not by a 
corruptible feed ^ but an incorruptible > and by the water 
and the fpirit^ and thefe three agree in one : «V lo t\ «Vfv, 
fays the Greek: Now thefe lall words are the words 
of the eighth verfe of St. John^ but thofe of the 
feventh are not alledg'd > it's very true, and the rea- 
fon is becaufc they ought not j for who in a citation 
which has regard merely to fpiritual regenerationwould 
produce a Text which fpeaks nothing of it, and con- 
cerns onlv the v/itnefs of the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy'Ghoft ? 

St. Gregory Nazianzen has quoted alfo the eighth 
verfe without the feventh. But we ought to give 
the reafon why he did fo. The quotation occurs in 
a treatife he wrote againft the Macedonians in behalf 
of the Holy Gholl's Divinity. Thofe Hereticks 
maintain'd, that only things of the fame nature could 
come under the fame denomination 3 qu^ poffint^ faid 
they, connumerari^ noi fubnumer art -^ I know not 
well what to make of their frivolous diitin^lion : But 
againil this notion St. Gregory oppos'd the eighth 
verfe, "there are three that hear witnefs^ the fpirit^ the 
'^ater^ and the bloody and thefe three are one : this 
inftance was much to his purpofe. He adds yet ano- 
ther in the word dog^ which is the common name 
of three different things, of a four-footed animal, 
of a filh call'd cams marinus^ and of a conftellation 
namM the dog-Jlar, Now of what ufe would the 
feventh verfe have been in this cafe .^ The purport 
of it was direaiy contrary, for the three fubjeds there 
united under the denomination of one^ are of the 

fame 



( JO^ ) 

fame nature, whereas St. Gregory is f peaking of fuch 
matters as are of a nature quite difEcrcnt. 

There's a mighty flrefs laid upon St. Cyril of J- 
lexandria's citing in his feventh Dialogue, and his 
Book entitul'd fbefaurus^ the fixth, eighth, and 
ninth verfes of St. john^ and paffing over the feventh 
without flying one word of it. But let us fee with 
what defign. His aim was to prove, that the Scri- 
pture had given to the Holy Ghoft the appellation 
of Gocl^ in oppofition to the Hcreticks who taught, 
that name was no where afcrib'd to him. The lame 
objedion is propos'd and refuted by Gregory Nazian- 
zen in his 57^^ Difcourfe concerning the'^Holy Ghoft. 
St. Cyril to compafs his end alledges among'ii: other 
Texts the place of St. John's Epiftle which aids with 
thefe words of the ninth wak^ the witnefs of GocL 
The feventh verfe was nothing to his purpofe, for 
the name God is not there given to the Holy Ghoil. 

Thefe are all the inftances colleded from the Greek 
Fathers, let us now come to the Latins, Tertullian 
is always produced upon the occafion, tho' he has not 
fo much as touch'd upon the fubjed. 

He has wrote a treatife concerning Baptlfm, where- 
in befides the Baptifm with water^ he fays there is 
another in bloody to wit, Martyrdom : For of this 
Baptifm^ writes he, Jefus Chrifl fpake, when he [aid, 
he had another Baptifm to he baptized with^ tho' he had 
been before baptized with water, for he came by water 
and blood, as St. John obferves. But what's this to the 
feventh verfe? 

In fome Editions of St. Cyprian we have alfo a 
Dilcourfe concerning Baptifm, which is moft certain- 
ly not his, but an Author's by far more modern. He 
fpeaics here, as Divmes do, of three forts of Baptifm, 
tne Baptifm o^ water, the Baptifm of the ^V^and 
the Baptifm of ^/..^, and hereupon he quotes the 
words of the fixth and eighth verfes of St. John. 

The 



( ro3 ) 

The words of the fevcnth bore no relation to the 
fuhjcd. 

St. ylmhrofe is withal urgM againft us, who in two 
places hath us'd the words of the eighth verfc, and 
not mention'd the feventh. In the one of thefc 
places, which is upon thefe words of St. Luke^ Chap, 
xxii. y. 10. 'There jloall meet you a man hearing a 
pitcher of water : he turns his difcourfe to the water 
in thefe terms, O r^ater^ ivhich haft had the honour to 
become the facrament of cur regeneration^ thou art one 
of the three ijuitneffes^ ^jjhereof 'tis faid^ There are three 
that bear witnefs^ the fpirit^ the water ^ and the blood. 
Of what ufe would the Text of the three witnefTes 
in heaven have here been? Truly, of none. 

The other place where this Father has quoted the 
eighth verfe without touching upon the feventh is in 
the fixth Chapter of the firlt Book of a Tract con- 
cerning the Holy Ghoif. Being renewed^ fays he, 
by the Holy Ghoft^ "we are raifed up and horn again: 
and for this caufe thefe three witnejj'es^ the fpirit^ the 
ivater^ and the bloody are^ as St. John hath faid^ one 
and the fame thing : the fame in myftery^ thd" not in 
nature. Would they have had the three v/itnefles m 
heaven of the feventh verfe alledg'd here ? St. Am- 
hrofe knew better than to urge Texts fo little to his 
purpofe. 

In the fame Trad, in the 1 1^^^ Chapter of the third 
Book being about to prove the Holy Gholt to be God, 
becaufe he is the Author of our regeneration, he re- 
cites the words of the fifth verfe of St. John\ Gof- 
pel, where 'tis {iiid we mull be born again of wattr 
and the fpirit^ and joins to it what the lame St. John 
has faid in his Epitllc, that Jefus Chrill: came by water 
and bloody and that there are three witncHes, the fpi- 
rit^ the water and the blood. And yet all this has no 
affinity with the three witnefTes in heaven of the fe- 
venth verfe. 

A great advantage is pretended to be taken from 

St. 



C 104 ) 

St. Juguftim^ who in his difpute againil: Maximinus^ 
an Jrian Bifliop, prefles very clofe the eighth verfe, 
and omits the feventh, tho' decifive for the dodrine 
ot the Trinity. 

St. Juguftine had advanced a Propofition, moft cer- 
tainly not to be maintain'd, that the Scripture had 
never faid of two or more different things that they 
were one ; and hereto he makes himfelf this obje6]:i- 
on> St. Johnhnh faid, there are three that hear wit- 
nefs<y the fpirit^ the water and the bloody and thefe three 
are one. His anfwer to this objedion is, that indeed 
thefe three things were different in their nature, but 
in their fignification were but one and the fame thing, 
namely, three perfons in one God. 

An ordinary Logician at this day would fee, that 
this anfwer is one of the paralogifms which the 
Schools term ^^ ^^;^^r^ in genus : but without pufhing 
this remark here further, we will only fay, that if 
St. Augujiine had confulted the Greeks for he under- 
jftood it well enough for this purpofe, he would have 
found the original was not ol t^«? ev e<(r<v, hi tres u- 
num funt^ as the Latin Copies have it, but in unum 
[unt. However, the Text of the feventh verfe 
was fo far from being proper to the occaiion, that 
'twas directly contrary to his purpofe, for here the 
three are not of a different nature, but the fame. 

The next in order is St. Leo^ who in his tenth E- 
piftle to Flavianus quotes the fixth and eighth verfes 
of St. John^ and not the feventh. To which I an- 
fwer, that St.Z.^0 had reafon for what he did, and 
that the inftance in him makes nothing againfl: the 
authenticknefs of this Text : For his delign was only 
to prove the reality of Jefus Chrifi's human nature, 
that it was the fimc with ours, in oppofition to the 
herefy of Eiitiches^ who did not deny the Trinity, 
but confounding the natures in Jefus Chrift^ took 
from him by that means the properties effential to 
humanity. So that the Text of the feventh verfe, 

which 



( loj ) 

which has no connexion with thai fubjCifr, ought not 
to have been alledg'd. 

Befides, St. Leo liv'd in the fifth Century, betv/ix: 
the time of St. Eucberias^ and that perlon who drew 
lip the celebrated Confeilion of Faith of the African 
Churches, whereof I have fpokcn abo\T, fo that hr 
could not be ignorant this pallage of Sr. Jolm was m 
the Bible > and thus can no Advantage be drawn from 
his not having urg'd it, tho' it had been to his pur- 
pofe. 

At laft, we are brought again to Facundus^ who 
has urg'd the eighth vcrfe in proof o^ the Trinity, 
in (lead of the feventh which had been far more pro- 
per. I own it : yet Facundus could not but know 
that all the African Bifhops feme years before hecam* 
to his Biihoprick had defended the myflery of the 
Trinity by the words of the feventh verfe of St. John-, 
he ought therefore to have kept cloie to that, and 
not run after an allegorical conceit. 

Chap. V. 

The fifth objcchon ^ the ancient Commen-^ 
tators upon St. John'5 EpfUe have 
paffd over the difptited verfe tn fdence. 

THefe Commentators are the four following} 
Clement of Alexandria^ Didymus j Bede a-nd 
OEcumenius. 

St. element's Commentary upon St. John's Epiftle 
is not come down to us with the reft of his works, 
we only know that he did write upon the fevcn Ca- 
nonical Epiftles J but that work is loft. Cafiodorus * 

» Caffiod. Inji'ft. Uh. i. c 8. "" 

P tcll^ 



( to6 ) 

tells US, he trandated it into Latm^ but we have loft 
alio his tranllation. The whole of this Comment of 
Clemens Jlexandrinus is reduc'd to a few fmall Scholia 
or Notes, rhat are extant under his name in the third 
* Volume of the Blbliotheca Patrum: but we learn 
there at the beginning of 'em, that they are not be- 
liev'd to be the Work Cajjlodorus tranflated. Dr. 
Cavs places 'em in the rank of fuppolititious books, 
and I'm of opinion no one that has read 'em can pafs 
any other judgment upon 'em, v/ho is the leaft ac- 
quainted with the llrength of genius and extcnflve 
karning that fhines thro' every line in Clement of 
Alexandria. The tra6t: is iliort, a page and half com- 
prehends all that's fud upon St. John's Epitlle, with- 
out skilly or life: all is dull, faint and languiiliing. 

No notice is here taken of the feventh verfe of the 
nfth chapter of St. John's Epiftle > but the five fii-ft 
vsrfes of the fame chapter are withal omitted. He 
begins at the fixth verfe, and gives us only the firit 
vi'ords of it; from hence he pafles over to the eighth, 
from thence to the end of the eleventh, after that he 
ieaves the twelfth , the thirteenth , and part of the 
fourteenth, and betakes himfelf to the lail claufe of 
rhe nineteenth verfe. Can any thing be more pitiful ? 
And is this an Author to be fet in oppoiition againft 
us } 

^ Didyyniis of Alexandria flourifh'd in the fourth 
Century, he made a Comment upon St. John's firft 
Epiftle, but what remains of it is very imperfed 5 
the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter is wanting 
there, and the fixth, and eighth, and ninth, and the 
tollowing to the fourteenth are wanting alfo. But 
as we can't conclude from hence that St. John's Epi- 
iile had not all thefe verfes, fo neither can we infer 
•r had not the feventh ; this would be to carry double 
weight, to have double meafure. 

Bede has expounded the fame Epiftle, and his Com- 
mentary do's noi; fail of exaftnefs ; he explains the 
" -. fixth 



( 107 ) 

iixth and eighth vcifes of the fifth chapter, but Hivs 
nothing of the feventh , which is fo confidcrable. 
This lilence may caufc a prejudice, but that's all. 
Two reafons may convince us, that the if":.:ter Hands 
thus. 

Firft, we can't fay Bede was ign®rant, that this 
Text had been urg'd by St. Cypria/i^ and St. Fiilgen- 
tins y he had read their works and quoted them in his 
own writings. He was not ignorant withal, being fo 
much vers'd in the ftudy of Antiquity, that this Text 
was cited in the Hiilory o( FicJor ^ an Author Bcda 
has alfo quoted. 

All that can be anfwer'd to this is, that tho'^^.^^^ 
knew the padagc of St. John had been cited by ihe 
ancient Doctors of the Church , he notwithitanding 
belicv'd it fuppofititious, or at leall was not fully a{- 
fur'd It was the Apofllc's. But befidcs that this is to 
attribute to Bede a fentiment he has given no grounds 
for, neither in his Commentary, nor elfewhere, 'tis 
quite to miitake his character and turn of thought. 
-'^ Beck was learned in Greek^ and a very good Critick 
for the time he hv'd in : when he found m the Books 
he commented upon any verfe that was not in the 
Greek^ he never fail'd to take notice of it 3 how came 
he then to let a paflage of this importance efcape him : 
It was not enough to be filent in the affiir, his fi- 
lence might have pafs'd for an approbation -, and he 
was bound in confcience, and in regard to truth to 
inform the publick in a bufinefs of this nature. If he 
did not, it was becaufe he had no fciuples concern- 
ing the genuinenefs of Si.Jobns Text. 

Why then, may fome fay, has he wrote nothing 
upon this padage which fo well deferv'd to be ex- 
plain'd ? No one is now oblig'd to give a reafon for 
his filencej 'tis enough to Inew that no confequencc 



^ M. Simon. Hiji. Crit. des Commentate co. 14. 

p z can 



( io8 ) 

can be drawn from it againft the authentlcknefs of 
the Text. 

Commentators have always been at liberty to ex- 
pound what paflages in Books they pleas'd. St. Chry- 
foftom^ for example, has commented upon the Adis^ 
and when he came to the eighth chapter took no no- 
tice at all of the thirty feventh verfe, tho' it be one of 
the moll beautiful in the whole chapter. 

Shall we fiiy this is a fign the verfe was not in the 
New Teftament, and that if it was there, 'twas not 
in fome Copies, or that St. Chryfoftom thought it not 
genuine ? We can't affert any thing of this kind j 
why then fhould we fiy the fame of the feventh verfe 
of St. John upon Bede's not having infcrted it into 
his Commentary? The Cafe is parallel. 

Befides, we ought to know there has been no one an- 
cient Commentator that has taken the liberty I have 
been fpeaking of more than Bede^ of pafling over very 
important Texts without faying one word concerning 
'cm. For inftance, he has not explain'd the 2o^^^,zi ^^, 
21^ verfcsofthefiril: Chapter of St. PauPs firll Epiitle, 
the moll excellent throughout the whole Epiftle. in 
his Comment upon St. 'John's Gofpel he has omit- 
ted the fifty third and fifty fourth verfes of the 
eighth Chapter. In his Commentary upon the 
.4^s he has; entirely pafs'd over the twelfth and 
following verfes to the twenty third of the fecond 
Chapter. Apd tho' m his Book of Retra6lations up- 
on this Commentary he has run over divers Texts he 
had not explain'd before, yet with regard to thole 
of the fecond Chapter, he takes notice only of the 
thirteenth, without touching upon the others 3 as if 
that had been the only one he had really thought di- 
vinely infpir'd. I could produce many other inltances, 
but thefe already urg'd are more than fufficient to 
fliew, that tho' this iearn'd Divine has not commented 
upon the leventh verfe of St. John j it follows not 

nc^ver- 



{ lo? ) 

neverthelcfs that this verfe was wanting in the Bibles 
of his time, or that he believed it fuppofiritious. 

We have none behind but OEcumenius^ a Greek 
Writer, who Hv'd towards the clofe of the tenth 
Century, or beginning of the eleventh. He wrote 
a Commentary upon St. Johyis Epiftle, and has nei- 
ther expounded nor recited this pafHige. But what 
conclufion fhall we draw from thence? That in his 
time the pafTagc was not in the Epiltle ? I have fhewn 
it was : And belides, were this concluiion admitted^ 
we fhould of right draw the fame from a like fi- 
lence of St. Chryfoftom againft the thirty fevcnth verfe 
of the eigth chapter of the u4cis^ upon which that 
learned Interpreter has not vouchfafcd one word, tho' 
he has expounded all the Chapter befide. Shall we 
fay then, that OEcumenins did not believe the paf- 
fage of the witnefTes in Heaven to be St. John's^ 
But either this was his own private fentiment, or the 
opinion of the Greek Church in his time. If the lat- 
ter, OEcumenius had no reafon to pafs over the Text 
in filence, and not mark it as a Text that a foreign 
hand had inferted into fome Manulcnpts. And if it 
was his own private opinion only, the caufc I main- 
tain will rather be the better than worfe by the o- 
miflion of the palfage in OEcumen:us\ Commentary, 
Upon the whole, 'tis of no momciit to fearch ^^ti^ 
into the reafonsof this omiflion, fince the genuinenels 
of the pafTiige can receive no detriment from it. 

If we now place on the one iide all that we have 
urg'd throU(ghout this DiiTertation in defence of the 
Text's authenticknefs, and on the other whatever has 
been alledg'd againll it to prove it a forgery, we fhall 
findavalldifproportion. Ontheoppofitepart we have 
nothing but reafoning without proof j on ours we 
have evident proofs, and reafonings upon 'em. We 
fettle a matter of facl upon pofitive teltimonies j this 
faft they deny upon the credit of mere omiflions. 
The witnefTes I produce urge and explain it clearly 

"» and 



( "O ) 

and without ambiguity, witnefTes not to be rejeded, 
againil whom can lye no juft exception > and by what 
other means can a matter of fad be made out ? They 
on the contrary alledge mute witnefTes, witncfles that 
can't fpeak but by iigns > Manufcripts that have not 
the Text i Writers who have* not quoted it : I have 
ah-eady fhewn that this pretended fpeaking by ftgns^ 
to wit, the filence both of Writers and Manufcripts 
is inconclufive. And is not here a prodigious dif- 
parity ? 

We are bound in reafon to weigh thefe matters, 
in order to determine where the preference is due. 
If then we take the balance in hand, we fhall foon 
fee the charge of forgery againll this pafTage difap- 
pear, audits genuinenefs triumphant. Every Chriftian 
who is fincerely concerned for the fundamental Do- 
drine this Text enforces, ihould be pleas'd that we 
have demonftrated its authenticknefs, fince the other 
paffages wherein the Holy Trinity is revealed to us, 
are hereby rendered far more clear in the article of 
that grand myftery. If it was not for that fubhme 
Dodrine, which in all ages, and unhappily in ours 
too, has met with perfons who in fecret llrive againfl: 
its truth, the pafliige of St. John's Epiftle in all pro- 
bability would not have found the oppofition which 
has been form'd againft it. Some indeed have inno- 
cently imbib'd the opinion from others, whofe de- 
figns were but too plain from their Doftrine. St. 
John requires we JJ)Ould try the fpirits^ and St. Paul^ 
that "we examine all things and hold fafi that which is 
good. Thefe are two rules every wife and pious Chri- 
Itian ought to flick clofe to, and thefe 1 have endea- 
vour'd conilantly to follow. 



FINIS. 



BOOKS printed for Willia^i arid John Innys. 

PLain Notions of our Lord's Divinity. Set forth in a Ser- 
mon preached upon Chriltmas Day, at the Royal Chapel 
of Whitehall. Pubhlhed at th.e Requelt of many of the Audi- 
ence. By Tho. Mangey, LL. D. Chaplain to the Right Rever- 
end Father in God, John, Lord Bifhop of London. 

Remarks upon Nazirenus, wherein the Fajfity of 

Mr. 'Poland's Mahometan Gofpel, and his Mifrepreicntation 
of Mahomet-^n Sentiments in refpecfl of Chriftianity are fet forth; 
and the Hiftory of the old Nazaraean clear'd up,- and the whole 
Condudl of the hift Chriilians in reipe(ft of the Jewifli Law, ex- 
plain'd and defended. The fecond Edition, Ocftavo. 

Mangey's praftical Difcourfes upon the Lord's Prayer, 

preached before the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn ; the fecond 
Edition, Oclavo. 

A Charity Sermon preach'd at Chelfea July; 29, 17 16. 

Odavo. 

Dr. Bennct's Difcourfe of the ever-bleiPed Trinity in Unity, 
with an Examination of Dr. Clarke's Scripture Dodrine of the 
Trinity, Odtavo. 

Diredions for liudying : i. A general Syflem or Body of 

Divinity. 1. The 39 Articles of Religion. Second Edition. Svo. 
■ ■Difcourfe of Schifm ; fliewing, i. What is meant by 
Schifm : 2. That Schifm is a damnable Sin: 3. That there is a 
Schifm between the cllabliQi'd Church of England and the Dif- 
fenters: 4. That this Schifm is to be charg'd on the DilTcnters 
Side : 5. That the modern Pretences of Toleration, Agreement 
in Fundamentals, &c. will not excufe the Diffenters from being 
guilty of Sch'fm, &c. Fourth Edit. Svo. 

Mr. Bragg's Pradical Obfervations upon the Miracles of our 
blcffed Saviour, 2 Vol. 8vo. 

Pradical Difcourfes upon the Parables of our bleffed Sa- 
viour, 2 Vol. Svo. 

Mr. Derham's Phyfico-Theology ; or a Demonflration of the 
Being and Attributes of God, from his Works of Creation ; with 
large Notes, and many Curious Obfervations. The fourth Edit. 
Svo. 

— -Aftro- Theology ; or a Demonflration of the Being and 
Attributes of God, from a Survey of the H#«vens; illuftrated 
with Copper Plates; the third Edition, Svo. 

The Chriftian's beft Guide, Svo. 

Mr. 



'A 

Books printed for W. and]. Innys/ 

Mr. R\y"s Wifdotn of God manifefted in the Works of the 
Creation, in two Parts, the feventh Edition. 
— .'Miyfico-Theological Difcourfes, concerning I. The Pri- 
mitive Cluos and Creation of the World. II. The general De- 
hige, its Caules and EflTcas. III. The Dilfolution of the World, 
and general Conflagration ; with Cuts. The third Edit, with 
Addicions, 8vo. And all the reft of iMr. Ray's Works. 

-?hilofophicnl Letters between the late learned Mr. Ray, 

and i'evera! of his ingenious Correfpondents, Natives and Fo- 
reigners. To which are added thofe of Francis Willugby, Efq; 
the whole confining of many curious Difcoveries and Improve- 
ments m the Hiftovy of Quadrupeds, Birds, Fi(bes, Infects, 
Plants, Foffiles, Fountains, 6cc. Publiflied by the Reverend 
Mr. Derham, 8vo- 

Harts Bulwark ftormed, in Anfwer to Delaune's Plea for the 
Nonconformills; with a Preface by Dr. Brett, 8vo. 

Dr. Lucas's Enquiry after Happinefs ; in three Parts: i. Of 
the PolFibility of obtaining Happinefs. 2. Of the true Notion 
of human Life. 3. Of Religious Perfeftion, in two Vol. 8vo. 
——Twenty four Sermons on feveral Occalions, in two Vol. 
8vo. 

Pracflical Chriftianity, fifth Edition. 

•Influence of Conversation, Twelves. 

——Duty of Servants, Twelves. 

Spiritual Year, Twelves. 
—Plain Man's Guide to Heaven. 

Mr. Kettlewell's Help and Exhortation to worthy communi- 
cating, 8vo. 

■ -Works ; i« two Vol. Fol. in the Prefs. 
Dr.Baiil Kennet's Antiquities of Rome, with Cuts, 8vo. 
The Lives of the French, Itahan, and German Philofopher<;, 
late Members of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris,- to- 
gether with Abftradls of fome of the choiceft Pieces, communi- 
cated by them to that illuftrious Society : To which is added 
the Preface of the ingenious Mr. Fontinelle, Secretary, and Au- 
thor of the Hiftory of the faid Academy, 8vo. 

Ludolphus's Hiftory of Ethiopia, with Copper Plates, FoJ. 
Mr, Lock's Works m 3 Vol. Folio. 
Mr. Lawrence of Gardening, 8vo. 
— — Clwiftian Morals and Chriftian Prudence, 8vo. 

Mr. Le Neve's EfTay towards deducing a regular SuccelTion 
of all the principal Dignitaries in England and Wales, Fol. 
The Life «f Archbilhop Whitgift, by Mr. Strype^ Fol. 
Mr. Marftial's Chronological Tables in Englifti and Latin* FoL 
Minutius Felix, englifbed by Mr. Combe, 8vo. 
Milton's Paradife loft and regain'd, in 2 Vol. Twelves. 
Mr. Mortimer's whole Art of HuftiandTy, two Vol. Svo* 



/PI 
A 

Second Dissertation 
By Mr. MARTIN 

In DEFENCE of the 

TESTIMONY 

Given to our 

SAVIOUR 
B Y 

JOSEP HUS; 

W H E Pv E I N 

The Paragraph in the 4-^ Chapter of the 1 8'^^ Book 
of the Jewijh Antiquities concerning Chr'tH 
Jeftis is prov'd to be authentick. 

Tfanflated from the French Original. 



L O M'D O K: 

Printed for W. and J. Innys at the Prince's Arms ^c 
the IVeft End of St./^^»/'s Chnrch-yard. ME)Ccxix, 




THE 

PREFACE. 

HE Subjeft of this fecond DiiTertation 
is not near fo important as the former. 
For whether the honourable tedimony 
given to our Saviour in the Jewijh Anti- 
quities does really belong to Jofcphus or 
no, Jefus Chrift and the Chriilian Religion will be no 
great gainers or lofers by the bargain. So that the 
love of truth is properly the only motive, engaging 
us to examine into this affair. For my own pare, 
I have the current ftream of antiquity on my ^lAc^ 
with the confent of mod of the Learned of thefe la- 
ter ages, in maintaining the paflage was wrote by 
him. Thofe of the oppofite party ground their opi- 
nion wholly upon arguments, which at beft are only 
probable, and many of 'em very unlikely. Ours on 
the other hand are fubilantial and pofitive, taken 
from the Manufcripts of Jofephus^ and the quotati- 
ons, which the bed and mod ancient Authors have 
made of this pafTage. I have endeavour'd thefe argu- 
ments fliould lofe nothing of their evidence, nor abate 
of their force, in the following tradj and 1 have add- 
ed withal a confideration relating to the perfon of 
Jofephus^ which Tm of opinion will appear whollv 
new upon the occafion, at lead I have no where met 
with it; However, I venture nothing in propofing 
it, as having urg'd it upon fure grounds, which are 
borrowed Irom Jojephus hixnfelf. 



THE 






THE 

CONTENTS. 

Chap, i- A ^ account of this teftimony^ and what 

XX, fentiments the Writers of thefe later 

times have had of it. page i 

Chap. II. Wherein the pajfage in the Book of Antiqui- 
ties is fhewn to he genuine and not fpurious, 6 

Chap. III. An anfwer to the jirft argument urg^d a^ 
gainft this paffage^ taken from the quality and parti- 
cular character of the Hifiorian, 14 

Chap. IV. T^hat Uis no argument againft the genuine- 

nefs of the pajjage z;^ Jofephus, that Eufebius is the 

firfi^ who ever quoted it, 17 

Chap. V. An anfwer to the ohjeBion againfl this pajfage 
taken from the filence of tS^/. Juftin, TertuUian, St. 
Cyprian, Origen, and Photius. 24 

Chap. VI. The obje^iion againfl this pajjage^ that "'tis 
fo ill plac'd in the Book of Antiquities^ that "'tis in- 
credible jo{c\)hus put it there ^ anfwer' d. jz 

Chap. VI I. An anfwer to fome other lefs confiderable 
arguments ttrg'd againfi the authenticknefs of this pa- 
ragraph. 41 

Chap. VIII. An examination of the fever al expreffions 
in the difputed teftimonyj which occafion the fufpicion 
of its hci?igfpurious. 4(5 

Chap. IX. The exa5t and particular examination of ]q- 
fcphusV teftimony continued. 5-4 

Chap. X. An enquiry into the politicks^ and ambition of 
Joiephus, and how his tefiimony concerning Jefus 
Chriit was owing to both thefe, 61 

ACri* 



I ) 




A 

Critical Dissertation 

Upon the 

Tellimony JOSEPHUS gives of our 
SaviourJFsus Christ in Book XVIII, 

Chap, iv, of his Jewifh Anttqmues. 

Chap. I. 

Aj account of th'is tcfihnony^ and what 
fenttments the writers of thefe later 
times have had of it. 

HOUGH the truth of the Gofpel 
Hillovy Hands fufficiently fupported of 
it fclf, the additional tellimonies of 
Writers in the firll Ages, who never 
made profeflion of Chriicianity, cannoc 
but heighten the evidence in their opinion, who 
fufpcdt the KvangeHlls to be Authors of doubtful 

B Autho' 




Authority. The fum of this marvellous hiftory is^ 
that there was in Jud^ea^ and at the time the Evan- 
gelifls have fpecifyed, a man named jefus^ who 
preach'd there with wonderful fuccefs, who work'd 
divers miracles, and this not with (landing was per- 
■ fecuted by his own nation, that he was carried be- 
fore a Roman Judge by the chief of the Jews^ and 
by that Judge condemn'd to be crucify 'd, that from 
this Jejus was formed a very numerous Se6l of Chri- 
ilians, who followed his doftrine, worihip'd him as 
a God, and for this caufe were cruelly perfccuted 
in Judaa^ and other Countries throughout the Ro- 
man Empire. All thefe fadls, which are the fubjccb 
of Church Hiftory from its firft Original for fome 
Ages, are for the mod part attefted by the Heathen 
Writers, 'Tacitus^ Suetonius^ Lucian^ and others.. 
But the mofh confiderable teilimony of ail is the 
palFage of the fam'd Jewtfi Hidorian, which he has 
given us in his Antiquities o^xhtjews: The words 
exaftly tranflated from the Greek are thefe. jlt 
that time^ to wit , the itime of Pilate , was Jefus, 
n wife man^ if yet we may call him a man^ for he 
did many miracles. He was a teacher of the truth 
to fuch ferfons as would readily embrace it^ and drew 
after him multitudes both of Jews and Gentiles. He 
was the Chrift. He was accused by the principal men 
of our nation before Pilate, who caused him to be cru- 
cify'd. Tet thofe who fir ft lov'd him did not forfake 
him J for he appear'' d to them alive again on the third 
day. 'The Holy Prophets had foretold thefe and many 
other wonderful things^ of him: and the race of Chri- 
Jiians^ who are fo calPd from him^ remain to this 
day, 

A teflimony fo extraordinary, wherein every thing 
that could advance the honour of Jefus Chrift is 
urg'd fo precifely, and with fuch exa6i:nefs, feems 
not poffible to have come from an unbelieving Jew^ 
a Prieft among the Jcws^ and withal a Pharifee ^ 

for 



(3) 

for Jofephus was all this. Yet Antiquity has uni^ 
verfally afciib'd the pafTage to Jofephus^ and from, 
the fecond Century to the fixteenth it has been 
receiv'd without contradidion, and no perfon found 
who ever caft upon it the imputation of for- 
gery. 

Gijfcimiis^ a Civilian in Germany^ in the fixteenth 
Century is, if I miftake not, the firll Who in fome 
one of his Works has taken upon him to doubt, 
whether this teftimony was really Jofephus's. Lucas 
Ofiander a Lutheran Divine, and contemporary with 
Giffanius^ has agreed with him in the conjecture. 
The Jefuit Salmsron tov/ards the clofe of the fame 
Century was alfo, as 'tis faid, of their fentiment^ 
. and about the beginning of the lall h^^^^ the Jefuit 
Salianus in the Preface to the i.^ Vol. of his Annals 
has obferv'd, that many Learned Men fafpe^red this 
Paflage to be ratlier the work of a Chriltian, than 
of the JcjoiJJj Hiilorian^ but for his own part he 
believ'd with S. Jerom^ that Jofephus was its Au- 
thor. 

I know not that at that time any Perfon had ever 
abfolutely declar'd himfelf againil: the PafTage^ all 
that had appeared were doubts, fufpicions, uncertain* 
ties> but the Criticifm, which at firlt was ftarted 
with modeily, and carried fcarfulnefs in its front, 
within a while took courage, and grew more da- 
ring. 

^ Mr. CappeJ^ ProfeiTor in Divinity and Hebrew at 
Saumur^ Vv'as the firfr, at leafc that I know of, who 
in the year 1(534. attempted to prove this palfage 
was falfly attributed to Jofephus y he gives feveral 
reafons for his opinion, which I fhall examine in the 
fequel, with the arguments of all others who have 
efpous'd his feniiments. 

Mr. Blondel toUow'd foon after: he put out in 



Lad. Cappel. Compend. Hlft. Jud. 

B z i<54p, 



(4) 

164-9' an excellent treatife againfl the pretended Si- 
bylline Oracles, which he has fo clearly convided 
of forgery, that no one fince him has judg'd 'em 
genuine. As in treating on this head he had occa- 
lion to obferve, that in the firll: Ages of Chriftia- 
nity there came abroad divers of this fort of doubtful 
or fpurious Books, fo he made no difficulty to place 
in this rank the pafllige of Jofepbus concerning Cbrift 
Jefus: Some bold ba?id^ ^ fays he, batb infer ted it in- 
to the Book of Jevoijlo jintiquities^ and it is manifeftly 
an interpolation^ halving no coherence with the reft of 
the difcourfe^ that either goes before or folloivs after it -, 
the place 'tis pof/eft of being rather pitched on through 
party-prejudice^ than any juft grounds. If Mr. Bloft- 
deVs arguments were as ilrong as his expreflions, the 
affiiir would foon be decided, and \ve Ihould have 
no longer caufe to doubt the pailage v/as fuppofiti- 
tious : but this Learned Man, whofe obfcrvations 
are otherwife fo juil, has here fufferd himfelf to be 
led away by that party -prejudice^ which he charges 
upon others : as fhall be fhewn hereafter in this dif- 
courfe. 

The next in order after Blondel is the learned 
Mr. le Fevre^ Regent in the Univerfity of Samnur^ 
and a very excellent Critick, who wrote a Diilerta- 
tion upon the fmie fubject, which is printed among 
his Critical Letters. He llrikes home to the point, 
which others had but lightly touch'd on, and mana- 
ges the matter fo thoroughly on all fides, with that 
learning which was common to him, that all who 
have wrote after him on this head have been able to 
add nothing of much moment. 

^ Mr. Simon has inferted into the 2'^ Vol. of his 
Critical Bibliotheque a fmall Tra6i:, under the name 
o^Niw Piques J a Doctor of the Sorbonne^ which yet 



Blondel Traite des Sibyiles, Liv, i. ch. 7. 
Lib. 1. EpiiL 44. 

is 



( 5 ) 

is known to be Mr. Simon's own performance, 
wherein he zealoufly maintains the opinion of the 
Learned Men I have jiiH: mention'd againft the paf- 
fage of Jofephits. So hkcwife from time to time, 
fomctimes one namelefs writer, and fometimes ano- 
ther, have aflcrted this paflage to be fpurinus againft 
the body of Divines and Learned Men, who hold ic 
to be genuine. It mull: be own'd, there have been 
Ages, wherein through want of attention or exami- 
nation divers fpurious works have pafs'd upon the 
publick, and the fraud lain undifcover'd^ but thofe 
times are now no more, men are grown more cir- 
cumfped and attentive, and by the help of llrict 
Criticifm the forgery of moil of thefe ancient tracts 
is laid open, and no one any longer deceiv'd by 'em. 
But it has alfo fomctimes happen'd, that by endea- 
vouring to fearch too deep into an affair, men have 
Joll: themfelves in their own fpeculations, and then 
the truth Avhich was very apparent, is hid under 
the fubtleties of a doubtful enquiry. This we have 
^Q^n to be the cafe in the foregoing DifTertation up- 
on the paflage of St. Jobn-y and I quellion not but 
it will appear to be the fame in this Difcourfe upon 
the pafllige in the Antiquities of the Jews. And 
here I require not, that men iliould judge of its 
genuinenefs from the miiverfal confent of the Learn- 
ed till the 16^1^ or 17^^ Century j Prefcription feems 
not to me a fufficient motive to ground an opinion 
upon, nnce I hold it as a fix'd principle, that no- 
thing ought to prefcribe againft the truth. I iliall 
therefore engage with equal arms, urge reafons a- 
gainft reafons, and proofs againft proofs. 

But as in every qucftion of Fad:, the proofs which 
relate and affirm it ought to be oppos'd by the lame 
fortof proofs^ in cafe the latter are not found, the 
former remain in their full force, and decide the. 
contefted Fad to their advantage. 



Ch A 



P. 



Chap. II. 

Wherein the paffage in the Book of An- 
tiquities is jheivn to he genuine and 
not fpurious. 

ONE thing which every man who fipcerely 
aims at truth ought perpetually to have ia 
mind, in order to prevent miftakes in judgment, is an 
efpecial miilruft of the fecret affedions of his heart 
towards every thing which comes under the name 
oi party 'hitereft. Where'er this interefl reigns, the 
favour'd falihood eafily and imperceptibly gains ad- 
mittance and pafles for truth j like objedh, which 
appear to the eye of the fame colour with the glals 
they arefeen through. I do therefore readily allow, 
that in this Difpute we fliould have no regard to the 
advantage which may accrue to the Chriitian Faith 
from the teilimony o^ ^JeiviJIo Writer: our Saviour 
Jefus^ of whom this teilimony is given, has infinite- 
ly greater witnefs in his behalf, and it would be in- 
jurious to him to feek for teilimony from forgery 
and fraud to do him honour. A iincere and upright 
mind cannot but difapprove of the cheats, the iim- 
plicity of former ages has at fome times tolerated 
under the fpecious name of pious frauds y and would 
to God an indifcreet zeal and too credulous a devo- 
tion did not yet even at this day give place to 'em 
in fome countries, and ibme Chriilian Commu- 
nions ! Religion would be more pure, and God be 
better ferv'd. But to return to the paiTage of Jo- 
fephus^ and the arguments which fliew it to be ge- 
nuine. 

The 



(7) 

The firft is taken from the MSS. and Editions 
we have of his Works. When the Copies of Books, 
whether printed or iVISS. vary concerning a paflage, 
fo that 'tis in fome, and not in others, 'tis ufual to 
compare with the bell Editions thofe of lefs Autho- 
rity, and from thence to have recourfe to the MSS. 
feeing before the invention of Printing there were no 
other Copies of Books than thefe. The differen- 
ces in MSS. are oft the occafion of much trouble, 
and we Hand in need of all the aids of Criticifm, of 
all the fliarpnefs of wit and penetration of Judg- 
ment, to diilinguiili the true from the falfe reading. 
But when all the moft correal and mod ancient Edi- 
tions, which have been made from MSS. and con- 
fequently hold the place of Manufcriprs> when all 
the written Copies that are any where to be found 
in multitudes of Libraries agree in the fame pafTa^e 
we can have no furer rule than this univerfal agree- 
ment to prove the paflage not fpurious. If if was 
allow' d^ iiiys Socinus very judicioufly, and would to 
God he had always fpoken as juftly ! '^Ifit zvas allowed 
to call in queftion the aut bent i chiefs of a faffa^re 
which is conjlantly found in all Copies and all MSS, 
there would be no pajfage whofs genulnenefs might not 
reafonably be calTd in queftion. 

Upon this principle, which is the voice of Reafon 
it felf, the matter in difpute will foon be decided. 
The MSS. of Jofephiis are very numerous. We 
have 'em in all parts o^ Europe^ in France^ in Italy 
in the Libraries of Princes, Convents, and private 
Perfons: We are withal furnifh'd with 'em from 
^fia. Now it may be faid, that thefe MSS. are of 
no great antiquity 5 but this is urg'd without proof, 
and I queftion whether any of the Learned who 
have confulted divers of 'em ever pafs'd this cen- 
furc upon 'em. Tho' were it fo, yet all agreeing in 

^_ Socin. de Ecclefia, ad linem. 

the 



(8) 

the difputed fa6t, and being copied after others far 
more ancient, they carry the genuinenels of the paf- 
fage as high as them, and fo from age to age up to 
the very firil, unlefs an inilance of an early MS. can 
be produced, wherein it was wanting. From this 
, reafoning and this prodigious uniformity of the MSS. 
is form'd an argument in favour of the paflage, 
' which v/on't admitt oF a reafonable reply. For 
' if it would, we might by the fame way of argu- 
ing ftrike off all the pafTages of any ancient Book 
whatfoever, which we fhould attempt to render du- 
bious : And I know not whether the Authority of 
an infinite number of Texts in Holy Scripture 
would not be fhaken into the bargain. I add far- 
ther, we fhould not have one of the mod decifive 
left, Qf whofe genuinenefs we could be fully aHiir'd. 
For fhould it be urg'd in its defence, that the Text 
is found in all the MSS : Yet thefe MSS. fay I, are 
too modern to fatisfy us, tho' the paflage be in them, 
that it was alfo in the more ancient. If you urge, 
farther, that 'tis found in MSS. a thoufand years old; 
Alas ! this is in no wife fufficient, you mull ftill go 
higher, for within the 700 years that are interpos'd be- 
twixt the time the Apoftles drew up their Writings, 
and the age of thefe Manufcripts, which are ancient on- 
ly with regard to us, many pallages may have eaiily 
crept into 'em, which were not in the original. How 
unfathomable is the abyfs > Reafon is drown'd in it, 
and the Faith in extreme danger of finking withal. 
What hinders us then from beholding all thefe fright- 
full confequences, which lye fo open ? Mull we for 
ah affeded fingularity in pafiirig judgment upon a 
paragraph in Jofephus introduce a principle, which 
overfpreads all the Hillorians of antiquity, all the Sa- 
cred Books, with doubtfull fufpicions of the authen- 
ticknefs of any paflage contain'd in 'em? No wife 
Man, no real Chriflian efpecially, Proteitant or Pa- 
piftj can avoid being ftruck with horror at the view. 

4 Yet 



(9) 

yet thefe confequcnces do naturally flow from the 
opinion I encounter. 

This is not all : the falfity of the principle is not on- 
ly evident from its confequences, it bears its own con- 
futation along with it. We have, fay they, thothis is 
iirg'd without proof, none but modern MSS. of 
Jofephus\ Works, MSS. of about three, or four, or 
five hundred years old : and I on the other hand af- 
fert, that we have MSS. of ten, of thirteen, or 
fourteen hundred years old. If they ask, where they 
are> I anfwer, before their eyes in the Authors of 
the fifth and fourth Century, who have recited the 
pafn^ge. I Ihall make the fame obfervation upon this 
head, which I have made in the foregoing Diflertation 
upon St. Jobyi'i paflugc, that a quotation in an an- 
cient Book, wrote by a grave and unfufpedled Au- 
thor, is fu* more conliderable, than the MS. it felf 
would be from whence it was taken 5 the reafon is 
evident J a Copy may have been wrote by a bad 
Tranfcribcr; and at the time of its firfl appearance 
been look'd on as a MS. of no weight: Whereas 
when an Author of learning, judgment, and reputa- 
tion copies a paflage from a MS. in order to infert it 
into his work, this is an infallible mark, i^"^. That 
the paflage cited is a6tuaUy in the MS. and 2^^% That 
in his opinion 'tis genuine, and not fuppofititious : 
Thus with the quotation we have the MS. and the 
fentiment of the Author concerning it, which is alfo 
the opinion of the Publick. What we have to fhew 
then is, that this paflage was anciently read in the 
Book oijofcphus^ and quoted by divers celebrated 
Writers in the 4^^ and f ^^^ Centuries. 

The firfl in this lift is Eufebius^ Bifhop of C^- 
fdrea^ and without contradiction one of the mofl 
Learned Men the Church had in thofe early Ages. 
To be convinc'd of this we need but read his 
Books de Demonfiratione £5? Pr^paratione Evangelicd, 
Throughout the whole of thefe two Works we eve- 

C ly 



( .0 ) 

ry \vBere find a prodigious acquaintance with the 
Authors, who wrote before him : divers of whofe 
Names and Writings we have no knowledge of but 
fram the quotations he has made of 'em. He was 
confecrattd Bifhop of Cafarea in Palccftine ^ in the 
year of our Lord 31 3. or 3 14. Now he could not 
have been promoted to this Dignity in the Church, 
efpecially to fo confiderable a See as that of C^farea^ 
unlefs he was fomewhat advanc'd in years, and had 
before eflablifli'd his reputation. Eujebius then be- 
gan to Hourifh in the 3^ Century, and Jofephus dyed 
in the 2^, as Scaliger has obferv'd in his Animadver- 
£ons upon Eiifebius'% Chronicon. By this fmall ob- 
fervation we fhall draw the times of their lives near 
to each other, which fome Moderns labour to repre- 
fent as far diilant, the more eafily to compafs their 
end, namely, to leflen the weight that Eu[ehius\ te- 
ilimony gives to the quotation of this palTage con- 
eerning Chrift Jefus. He has recited it in two of 
his Books, fir ft in his Treatife de Demonftratione E-^ 
vangelicdj and then in his Ecclefiafrical Hiilory, 
which he wrote feveral years after the other. 

In his Book ^ de Demmfiratione he has along chap- 
ter again fl thofe who pay no credit to the account the 
Evangehfts ha've given of our Savioufs miracles : That's 
the Title. The tellimony in the Book of Antiqui- 
ties could not here be well omitted: and thus 'tis re- 
ferv'd to the lad, as it were to feal up the evidence 
of the reft : And now, fays he, isohich is more than is ne- 
cejfary^ I /ball give you the teftimony 0/ Jofephus, an 
Hebrew Writer^ who in the 18'^ Book of his Jewifh 
Antiquities recounting the fa6ls which fell out in the 
days of Herod, fpeaks there alfo of our Lord Jefus 
Chrift: At that time was Jefus, a wife man^ if 
yet we may call him a many 6cc. the paffage is pro- 
duc'd entire. 



cDiiPin. Bibl.Ecclef. Tom.2. pag. 2. ^Lib. i.e. 2.. 

' - " " ■ ■ He 



(") 

He has infeited it withal into his s Ecclefiaflical 
Hillory, and obferv'd as in his Book of DemonJIra- 
tion^ that he took it from the i8^^ Q]\'\'^.o^Jofepbus\ 
JewiJJj ^Antiquities. 

St. Jcrom liv'd and wrote divers Books fonie years 
after the death of Eufehiiis. There is among his 
Works a fmall Tract, entitul'd a Catalogue of Eccle- 
ftaftical Writers. He there fpeaks in few wvords of 
the perfon of Jofephus and the vail: reputation his 
Books had gain'd him j his Hiftory of the War with 
the Je'ws.j fays he, was fo elleem'd by the Emperor 
Vefpcifiayi and his Son "titus^ that they caus'd ic to be 
laid up in the Publick Library, and in return ere6i:ed 
the Statue of Jofephus at Rome. St. Jerom proceeds 
CO his Book of Antiquities, andtranfliitesout o^ Greek 
into Latin the whole pail age concerning 7^/?.^ j Chrifi. 
Thisfhews, that he had before him the whole Works 
of Jofephus^ and that he took not the telHmony he 
rranflated from Eufebius^ but read it in Jofephus him- 
felf. 

Sophronius^ a Gr^^y^ Author, tranflated into his own 
tongue the traft of Ecclefiaftical Writers wrote by 
St. Jerom.^ his contemporary and friend, as Erafmus 
Hyles him : and finding under the article oi Jofephus^ 
that St. Jerom inftead of the words of the Jewijh 
Hillorian in the teftimony he gave to our Saviour, 
He zvas the Chrifi^ had put by way of explication and 
paraphrafe into his verfion, he was believ'd to be the 
Chrift^ credebatur eJfeQhxi'Hus^ Sophronius Ycilorcs the 
true reading as it was in Jofephus o x^t^cV Srog ^'v, he 
was the Chrifi : The remaining part of the pallage is 
withal copied from Jofephus^ and not from any of 
Eufebius's quotations. 

At the fame time Ruff.nus^ a Pried of Aquileia in 
Italy.^ turn'd into Latin Eufebius's Ecciefiaitical Hi- 
ilory. He found there the pailage of the jewifi Hi- 



fi Lib, I. cap. i. 

C 2, ilorian. 



( lO 

ilorian, but having obferv'd fome finall difFerences 
betwixt it and the Original, he made his Verfion 
from the Text o^Jofephus, 

In the following age, to wir, the f ^^ Century, Ifi-- 
dore oi Pelufium^ or Damiata^ in Egypt ^ a man of 
vafl judgment and great learning, urges againft the 
Jews the teftimony of their own Hillorian, and 
ufliers it in with this judicious obfervationj ^'^ uis it 
is on all hands agreed among the Jews and Romans, 
and in general by the whole world ^ that the witnefs 
of an adverfary is mo ft worthy of credit^ I ftjall here 
produce againft the Jews the teftimony Jofephus has 
given to the truth : ^t t&at time, fays he, fijag 
SlCfUlS, i^c, the paflage is taken entire from the 
Copies of Jofephus^ and not from the Books of Eu- 
febitis. 

In the fame age ^ Sozomen wrote an Ecclefiaftical 
Hiftoryin Greek, in which he produces Jofephus as 
a witnefs of Jefus Chrifi. Jofephus^ fays he, the Son 
c/ Matthias, a Prieft^ a?id of great reputation both a- 
mong the Jews and Romans, has bore witnefs to the 
true God the word 5 for he hath made no fcruple to fay 
that he did many miracles^ and that he preach' d the 
doBrine of truth 5 he hath, withad expreffly caWd him 
the Chrifi^ ^c. 

Suidas fhall be the lafr iluthor quoted upon this 
paflage, for 'twould be ufelefs to defcend to later a- 
ges. This Writer, who fiourifh'd in the eleventh 
Century, has compiled a fort of Greek Didionary, 
that is very ufefui in many cafes. In this Diftionary 
we have an article concerning Jofephus^ where the 
pafFage of the Book of x\ntiquities is given us as it 
Hands in the Hillorian, and not as Eufebius has quo- 
ted it in his Book de Demonftratione^ and in his Ec- 
cleiiallical Hiftory. 



h ifid. Pdeuf. Epift. lib. 4. Epift.2r25. 
\ Sozom. lib. i. ad princip. 



I haYC 



( ^3 ) 

I have made all thefe remarks upon the quotations 
of S. Jerom^ Sophromus^ RuffinMs^ Ifidore^ and Sui- 
das^ to fhew that they have not copied after Eufe- 
hius^ but taken the paflage from Jofephus himfelf: 
the ufe I fhall make of this obfcrvation will be feen 
hereafter. 

Nothing can confirm to us the agreement of the 
prcfent MSS o^ Jofephus with the moft ancient more 
than thefe quotations. The MS. Suidas had in 
Greece feven hundred years ago, in no wife differ'd 
from thofe we have at this day. The MS. of Sozo- 
men in another part of Greece^ and of S. Ifidore vsx 
^tJPU ^'x hundred years before iS'///W^j, had the fame 
paflage with his and ours. Sophronius had read the 
fame an hundred years before, in the Copy from 
which he revisM S. Jerome's tranflation, who had 
alfo in Palcefline a MS. of the fame Author. Ruffinus 
had read and confulted the original Greek of Jofe- 
phus^ when he tranflatcd the pafTage in the 1^"= Book 
of the Hillory of Eufehius^ who by trufting to his 
memory had miilook one word in the recital, as I 
fhall have occafion to iliew elfewhere. Eufehius 
had read it before all thefe in his Copy, and learnt it 
by heart, fo much did he think it deferv'd a place 
in his memory. Now what more can be defir'd in 
defence of the genuincnefs of an ancient pafTage againft 
the imputation of its being forg'd? If we would 
fpeak out, we muft own nothing but the nature of 
the pallage obflruds our aflent to it. If the tefti- 
mony here given to J ejus Chrijl had not been vn fuch* 
ftrong terms, and one half of what is faid had been 
omitted 5 if we read only, that in the days of Pilate 
Jefus appeared in Judj^a j that he was a wife man, 
of much knowledge, and upright in heart and mind^ 
that he drew after him abundance of difciples, and 
that from him was deriv'd the fam'd feel of Chri- 
flians, which was fpread over the whole world ; If 
the Hiftorian had withal added fomewhat upon the 

fubjeft 



(H) 

fubjeftof the miracles 7^7^^ wrought, all thefe grand 
difficulties, which have been form'd againft thepaf- 
fage, would vanifli on a fudden. Thefe MSS. that 
are now look'd on as of late date, would in their 
opinion who objeft againft 'em as modern, then put 
on the venerable air of antiquity -, they would be 
efteem'd as faithful Copies of more ancient MSS 3 
the citations of Eufebius^ Ruffinus^ S. Jerom^ So- 
phronius^ S. Ifidore^ Sozomen and Suidas^ would be 
receiv'd as oracles. What is there then but preju- 
dice in the cafe ? Truly, nothing more, becaufe the 
teftimony is too exprefs j there is nothing faid but 
what's true, but the truth here renders the paflage 
fufpefted, and betrays its forgery. We might then 
have been well contented without recourfe to all the 
efforts, all the fubtleties, of a ftudy'd Criticifm to 
evade the real and fubftantial proofs of its authen- 
ticknefs : but all thefe have been necefTary, and for 
want of good arguments, we muft take up with bad 
ones, 1 fliall run over them all, and confute 'em. 

Chap. III. 

An anfwer to the firji argument urg'd 
agamfi this pcijfage^ taken from the 
quality and particular charaBer of 
the Hifiorian. 

BEfore I come to an examination of the paflage 
it felf, which as I have obferv'd, is alone the 
principal bafis of the opinion I oppofe, 'twill be ne- 
ceflary to examine all the other arguments that are 
urg'd to prove it fuppofititious : I ihall omit none 
■ that 



( ^y ) 

that have coijie to my knowledge, or I have read 
in the fcveial Authors, who have wrote upon this 
head, from the time of its being fiid debated to this 
day. 

The firfl thing which is oppos'd againfl: this paf- 
fage is the quality and charadler of the Hiftorian, 
from whom it was taken. Now this is, as I have 
aheady (aid, that of a Jevj^ a Jew of the hneage of 
the Priefts, and withal by fe6l and rehgion a Pha^ 
rifee. From thefe three charadlers all united in one 
and the fame perfon, is form'd a very fpecious preju- 
dice againil a pafTage wherein appear lb many diffe- 
rent characters to all thefe. 

Could we be affur'd, that Jofephiis had cafl: off the 
fcntiments of his birth and education with regard to- 
the Chiiilian Religion, and that he was one of thoie 
moderate Jews, who tho' not entirely convinc'd of 
the truth, w^ere yet not wholly ellrang'd from it , we 
might fay that being dazled by its brightnefs he let 
fall thefe expreflions: but on the other hand he h 
reprefented to us an obftinate, opiniatcd jew^ an e- 
nemy to the Chiiilian Faith, and one,, who devo- 
ting himfelf to the intcrelts of the Emperors in 
whofe Court he held an eminent pofl, would have 
taken efpccial care not to give a teftimony fo ad- 
vantagious to a Religion and Se6t, which the Roman 
Emperors had perfecuted from its cradle. 

This reafoning, we muft own, has a fair out- 
fide, but that's all: for in cafes of fad real proofs 
are not dcftroy'd by reafoning, as I have oft ob- 
ferv'd. 

I can't fee too that the charaCler they have given of 
ihtjewijh Hiftorian has any juil: grounds. Jofephiis liv'd 
indeed and dy'd a Jew^ but he was not one of thofe 
obltinate oppofers of the Chriftian Religion, who 
far from faying any thing to its advantage, employ'd 
all their iiityr to blacken it wich falle imputations. 

Sozonwn 



{ i6 ) 

Sozomen ^ judg'd quite other wife, and refpe^ted him 
as a man who kept the mean betwixt Judaifm and 
Chriftianity, and who far from writing any thing 
againft it, feem'd rather inclin'd to the ChrilHan 
Faith. 

Origen long before him pafs'd ahnofl: the fame 
judgment upon him in his fird Book againft C^^j 3 
for after having faid , that Jofepkus look'd on the 
deftrudtion of Jerufalem as a juft judgment of God 
upon the Jews for unjuftly murdering James the 
Juft 5 ^ he goes on, Jofephus has transfer' d^ as it were 
againft his will, and by deviating but a little from 
the truth, the dejlru^ion <?/ Jerufalem and the 'Temple 
upon the death ^f James the Juft^ the brother o/Jelus, 
who was called Chrift^ whereas he (loould have [poke 
out and faid^ it was for the death 0/ Jefus himfelf. 

It is, in iliort, very certain that there is nothing 
in all the Writings of this famous Hiftorian, which 
expreHes the leaft hatred againft the Chriftian Reli- 
gion j on the contrary we find there feveral places 
that make for its honour. John the Baptift is men- 
tioned in very advantageous terms > He was^ ^^ fays 
the Hiftorian, a ?nan of much piety^ who taught the 
Jews the profeffion of 'virtue^ and praEike of juflice^ 
who exhorted them to receive his Baptifm^ and to joyri 
to the Purity of the Body an habitual Purity of Mind, 
And in another place of the fame Jewifh Hiftory, 
" fpeaking of the Apoftle St. James^ and the crime 
of they^'ZC'^ in murdering him, he expreiles himfelf 
in fuch manner concerning him, as fufficiently ihews 
the good opinion he had of him 3 and as it were to 



3^ Qiw3-efd/joi Soiom. lib. i. 

^ Jofeph. Antiq. Jud. lib, xviii. cap. 7, 
n Ibid. lib. XX. cap. 8, 

heighten 



( ^7). 

heighten his charafter, he adds, that he ^ims the bro- 
ther (?/ Jefus, tjoho was called Chrifi. 

As CO what is urg'd farther, that fo finilh'd a Po- 
litician, and one fo careful to keep in Do7nitian''s fa- 
vour, in whofe reign he wrote his Book of Anti- 
quities, would never have fpoke in praife of Jefus 
or his Religion, to which the Emperor was a declar'd 
enemy, the matter is quite millaken > for the conduft 
of the Hillorian is here entirely mifconfliucd. The 
whole turns upon a fuppofal, that to fpeak in behalf 
of Jefiis Chrifi or the Chiillian Religion, muii: be 

-inevitably to lofe the good graces o^ Domitian-, and 
I on the other hand undertake to fhew that the 
whole of th;s teftimony was owing to the refin'd 
Politicks o^ Jofephus^ and that this was the moll ef- 
ficacious means poilible of making his court to the 

Emperor. 

Chap. IV. 

That 'its no argument agatnjl the g^emi- 
tnenefs of the pajfage tn Jofephus, 
that Eu(ebius is the firjl zvho ever 
quoted tt. 

WE muft have but an ill opinion of Eiifehms'% 
fincerity, \i we think he forg'd a pafiage 
for Jofephns^ becaufe he has firft quoted it. Eufcbius 
had his faults, as all men have theirs: he has fomc- 
times miftook the name of one place for another, as 
where he fays, that Jofephus writes oi Herod ^ that he 
was banilh'd to Vienna^ inllead of Lyons^ as it is in 
Jofephus-^ and the name of one perfou i:oi- aiiother, 

D ai 



( i8 ) 

as in n^TiYrngJofephus fay the taxing, St. Luke men- 
tions in the 2.'^ Chap, of his Gofpel, was made under 
^iiriniiis^ whereas in Jofephus 'tis under Archelaus. 
Eeiidesrhefe faults of memory or pure inattention^ Eu- 
fcbius\\\^s been withal too credulous in giving heed to 
certain Apocryphal Stories, and receiving certain 
writings which went abroad under feign'd names. 
All thcfe miflakes, and fome fuch others, have no- 
thing in 'em but what the greateft and molt extraor- 
dinary men are fomctimes fubjed; to : but to charg^e an 
Author with fentiments he never efpous'd, and make 
him cxprefs 'cm in the llrongell and fullelt terms, is 
an a^rion at leait to be branded witli the name of 
outrage, and the perfon guilty of the excefs to be re- 
garded as a counterfeit and impoflor. Eufebius^ who 
had read fo many of the ancients, and drawn extra6ls 
out of lb many of their works, was never accus'd of 
forging any, or putting another's name to his own 
performance. But what will not a daring Critick 
attempt to obfcure a fa6b, which 'tis refolv'd ihall 
be a forgery? Eufehms is the firff, who has recited 
the paflage o^ Jofephus: Etifebius then, and not Jo- 
fephusj is the Author of it. We don't reafon thus, 
when paflion does not blind our Eyes, nor prejudice 
turn the t<^gt of our underilanding. If Eufebius 
had forg'd the pafTage, he would not only have been 
a cheat and an impoilor, but the moll: Ihipid knave 
can pofiibly be imagin'd 3 he would have wanted 
common fenfe. The Books of the Jewifi Hiftorian 
were not in thofe days, any more than now, Books 
of little elleem, which (like the animals we name 
ephemeran^ as being born and dead in a day) no 
fooner appear'd, but vanifli'd, were caft afide into 
corners, or lay cover'd in dull: the works of that 
Hidorian were univerfally approv'd: the Chrilb'ans 
valu'd 'em much 5 \}i\^Jews had 'em in their houfesj 
tii: Greeks and Latins who underllood Greek, read 
'en ai Books from whence they might be inform 'd 

of 



( >9) 

of a thoufand thln^ys ihey could clfc where have no 
knowledge of. And can wc think Lufchius fo (cnfc- 
lefs as to infert into his Copy of the Book of Anti- 
quities the pafHige we have feen there ? could he 
make it pafs into the MSS. of other Chrillians, dif- 
pers'd over the Eall and Well? Or by wliat rndgick 
was the fame paiTage, invented by the Bifliop of 
Cd-farea^ brought into the Books of ^jews and Pa- 



am 



:? 



Add to this, that Eufehius who, as we have faid 
above, has rehears'd the paflage entire in his Book de 
D e men ji rati one E^oangdicd^ and aftcrvvaid in his Ec- 
cleiiaftical Hillory, has not given us the fame words 
in both places, and in one of the two differs fome- 
what from Jofepbus. Thofe who underiland Greek 
may foon be convinc'd of this, if they will give 
thcmfelves the trouble of a collation j for my own 
part, that I might omit nothing in difcufling this 
affair, I have compared 'em, and find Eufehius to 
vary from himfelf in feven or eight places, and in 
almoft as many from the Text of the Jeivijo Anti- 
quities J tho' the fum and fubftancc of the pailvige 
has fufFer'd throughout no real alteration. From all 
which we learn, that Eufehius had this valuable paf- 
fage by heart, and that truifing to his memory 
in the recital, he happened, as the greatell men are 
apt to do, to put one word for another of the fame 
fignification, and to make fuch other irnall variations 
as affe6l not the main point. This is fo lar from 
the charafter of an impollor forging \qvc\\ or eight, 
fubfequent Periods under another Author's name, in 
a matter too of the lad confcquence, and every word 
of which (frikes home to the bufincfs in jjand, that 
'tis not poflible to conceive a man of undci Handing and 
a perfed: mailer in the art of writing, as we know 
Eufehius was, could have been capable of fuch grois flu- 
pidity. But we have no occaiion to dwell longer up- 
on thefe reflexions or others of the fame nature to 

D z ac^pit 



( 



10) 



acquit Eufehius of the injiiftice done him, in charging 
the forgery of this pallage upon him, becaufe hefirft 
quoted it j I find very few, who come in to the accu- 
(lition. But we have another, which tho' lefs to his 
difadvantage is not better fupported than the former, 
propos'd terms to this efFeft. 

They are willing to beheve Eufehius had read this 
pafTage in fome other Book diftind from the Hiftory 
of the y^-zw, but not calHng to mind where he"^had 
read it, and fancying 'twas in Jofephus^ he made him 
the Author of it, and quoted it under his name. Per- 
fons who have read much, and truft a great deal to 
their memory, or who have not time to run to the 
Books they have read, or who care not to givethem- 
^e\vGS the trouble of confulting 'em, are apt to con- 
found thus the Authors of the Books they cite. 'Tis 
a fad I fhan't attempt to deny, multitudes of inftan- 
cts may be urg'd of it : But then this remark is ne- 
ver made, but when it may be proved from the Books 
that are quoted, and when the places alledg'd are 
not in the Books refer'd to, but are found in others. 
Now this no one can fliew with regard to the cita- 
tion Eufehius has made of the pafTage in Jofephus : 
It is in Jofephus^ but no Author either ancient or mo- 
dern is fiid to have fccn it elfev/here : and this alone 
refblvcs the difficulty. 

'Tis true, fay they, we have now no ancient wri- 
ter, befides Jofephus^ who has the pafTage, but we 
learn from Photius^ that there was in the 3^ Centu- 
ry one Caius^ a Prieil o^ Rome^ who wrote a Book 
wherein he fpokemuch in praife o^Jefus Chrijl^ and 
this Book was by many believ'd to be Jofephus's^ 
might not then Eufehius have read this Book, and 
found in it this pafTage in favour of Chrifi^ and thu3 
have afcrib'd it to Jofephus by mi flaking Jofephus for 
<^ains^ thro* a flip in memory j or believing, as did 
many others, that this work of Caius was really Jo^ 
fyhus's, I'm furpriz'd how many fhifts a ftrong in- 
clination 



( ^y) 

clination to a particular opinion, how falfe foever 
it be, is able to find our. Inftead of realities men 
run to imaginations, and by heaping fuppofition up- 
on fuppofition think to difentanglc thcmTelves from 
all intricacies. Ca^us wrote no Book co}7cc}'n!?7g the 
Jewifi Jyitiquities^ the Work Pbotitis mentions was 
entiturd a freatife concerning the Univerfe. Photius 
fays not, that this Book bore the wxmc o^ jofephus -^ 
on the contrary he expreflly declares no Author's 
name was prefix'd to its and I'm allonifli'd there are 
men at this day who write that this Book had the 
name of Jofephus for its Author. Photius fiys, that 
the Book having no name before it, men were divi- 
ded in their fentiments concerning it, fome afcribing 
it to St. Jujlin^ others to St. Irenceiis^ and others to 
Jofephus , becatife of the agreement in flyie : That's 
all the reafon given for the opinion, a reafon weak 
indeed, when fupported by no others, that are more 
fubllantiaf, as we fhall fee prefently. In truth, he 
is fond of delufion, who fuffers himfelf to be led in- 
to it for the pleafure oF confounding together fo dif- 
ferent fubje<5ls by an imagination that may be turn'd 
which way one will. But to come back to Eufebius^ 
and finifli our defence of him againft the vain impu- 
tation of huddling marre'-s together by reciting a paf- 
fage out of a Book wrote by a Chriilian, and afcri- 
bing it to a "fewifh Writer. 

1 have obfcrv'd, that he has rehears'd it in two of 
his Books, his Evangelical Demonlbation, and his 
Ecclefiailical Hillory : Now if he had the firft time 
been miilaken in the name of the Author, would he 
have been fo negligent in amatterof fuch importance 
in which both his friends and enemies would have been 
able to put him in mind of his miftake, as to have em- 
ploy'd it a fecond time ? Let who will conceive it, foi 
my part I own my imagination can't reach fo far. 

Farther, when Eufebius iirfturg'd the pafTage, he 
did it that he might reftrain the incredulity of the 

Jev:i 



( ^o 

by oppofing the teflimony of a Writer of their own 
nation, and a Writer of credit, as we have feen a- 
bove. And can we fuppofe a BiiTiop of C^farea^ a 
man well skiird in controverfy, and of immenfe learn- 
ing, would acl fo like a novice in difpute, fo devoid ^ 
of ail judgment, as to urge againft the Jews a Chri- 
ilian Writer, upon the bare imagination that he was 
zjew. 

In quoting the paflage a fecond time in his Eccle- 
fiaftical Hiftory, there appears ail the confidence of 
a man who fears not to be charg'd with having quo- 
ted a falfity. His expreilions deferve well to have a 
place in the defence i make of his integrity and ho- 
iiefty : UHoerefore^ fays he, y/;?^^ Jofephus, a Writer 
defcended of the ancient Race of the Hebrews, has giv- 
en in his Hiftory thefe teflimonies 0/ John the Baptifi^ 
and our Saviour }c{us^ what fuht erf uge can he left for 
thofe^ who have forg'd falfe writings concerning ^em ? 
Or how can they efcape being convi^cd of i?npudence ? 
A man who writes in this ityle ought to be well af- 
fur'd the cenfures could not be retorted : it had been 
to give up himfelf bound to the condemnation he 
bad pronounc'd againd others, if his cafe was the 
fame, and he had afcrib'd to the Jewifo Hiftorian the 
Work of a Chrillian. But Eufebius was furc of his 
fact, and all the Copies of Jofephus acquitted him of 
the crime of impoflure and falliiication. 

Ifidore of Pelufiuni was no more afraid, than Eufe- 
hius^ of being charg'd with not having read \n Jofephus 
the teflimony he urg'd thence aganil the infidelity of 
the Jews. He gives it not in his Epiille as a fimple ac- 
count of what he had fomewhere read j but before his 
recital, as we have fliewn, he dwells upon the cha- 
racter of the Author, who being no Chriflian, but 
:^jewj and firmly attach'd to hisjudaifm, his telti- 
niony concerning Jefus Chrift ought to be the lefs 
fufpeded, and deferv'd credit the more ; It is agreed^ 
fciys he, in general hy the whole worldy that the wit- 

neCs 



( ^3 ; 

'/iefs of an adverfary is mofl worthy of credit : Therefore 
I JJjall here produce againft the Jews the tefti??iony of 
Jofephus. But would Jfidore have ever made this ob- 
fervation, if it had not been in his time a generally 
received opinion, that the teltimony w^s Jofephus'^. 
He mufl have a very mean idea of the fenfe and un- 
derftanding of thcie two great men, Eufehius and 
Ifidore^ who imagines they could not fee the inevi- 
table danger in fiich a cafe they were in of pafling in 
the world, efpecially among Infidels, whether Pa- 
gans or Jews^ for men who had neither Ihame nor 
confcience. 

In fine, I obfcrv'd in citing St. Jeroin^ Sophronius^ 
Rnffinus^ Ifulorc^ Sozomen^ and Suidas^ that their 
quotations agreed with the Text of the Jetvifi Hi- 
llorian, and were not taken from Eufebins. The 
matter is particularly plain in Sophroniits^ IfJore^ and 
Suidas^ who have given it in their own tongue from 
the Book of ^Antiquities. Sophronius copied it thence 
word for word \ he liv'd in the fame age with Eu- 
fehius^ and it may be never read his Works: But be 
that as it will, 'tis certain he tranfcrib'd it neither 
from the Book de Demonflratione Ev angelica^ nor 
from the Ecclefiaftical Hillory j it is but to compare 
em together, and it will foon be feen that I advance 
nothing but what I have well examin'd. Sophronius 
then took it moil: certainly from Jofephus -^ and with 
what fhew of reafon after this can it be charg'd with 
forgery? I can fcarce believe, that thofe who afTerc 
it have fearch'd fo deep into the affair as to know the 
bottom on't. 



Ch 



AP, 



( M ) 

Chap. V. 

An anfwer to the ohjeB'ton again fl this 
paffage taken from the ftlence of St^^xx- 
ftin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Ori- 
gen, and Pbotius. 

AS the pafTiige of Jofephus is not found quoted 
by thefe ancient Authors in the Books they 
wrote againft: the Jews^ tho' it be very ferviceable 
to the caufe of the Chriftian Rehgion, 'tis thence in- 
fer'd that 'twas not in their time in the Book of 
Jewifi Antiquities i but this is to draw a decifive 
conclufion from a principle unable to fupport its 
weight. All that can be gather'd hence is conjedture, 
probability, and nothing elfe: But here 'tis not e- 
nough they have probability on their fide, the rea- 
lity of the arguments urg'd for the genuinenefs of the 
paflage quite removes all conjefturesj and efpecially 
a conjed:ure that's inconfiftent with the rules of 
good reafoning. The grounds whereon it goes are 
all falfe and deflrudive : The iirft of which is, that 
a paflage which is in one ancient Writer ought not 
to be receiv'd as genuine, unlefs quoted by other Au- 
thors : The fecond, that no argument can be drawn 
from quotations made by very ancient Writers, if 
they are not found in other Authors fomewhat more 
ancient: The third, that in cafe an Author has wrote 
upon a particular Subje6i:, wherein the paflage would 
have been to his purpofe, and he has noc urg'd it, 
'tis a fure flgn that the paflage was not in his time in 
the Book from which others have quoted it foon af- 
ter. If none of thefe confequenccs be jufl:, nothing 

then 



then can be more weak and groundlcfs than the con- 
clufion which is form'd againflihe geniiinenefs of the 
padlige in Jofephus from the (ilcnce of ^i.Jujlin and 
Ibme others, who Hv'd before Eufchius. This fore 
of conje6tures has no place, nor the force of an ar- 
gument, but when there is no ancient quotation of a 
paflage, and no MS. Copy found which has it: But 
where the pallage occurs both in the Copies and quota- 
tions, there the conjedure taken from the lileiice of Au- 
thors concerning it is a mere phantom, and is fit only to 
delude the fcnfes. I come now to the examination 
of the Authors and writings, wherein 'tis urg'd the 
teftimony given of ^efus Chrifi ought to have been 
inferted, had it been extant in jofephus in the time 
of St. Juftin and others ^ or if they had bcliev'd, it 
really belong'd to the Book from \vhich it was quo- 
ted after their death. 

The firfl of thefe ancient Writers, who ought, 
fay they, to have quoted this famous telh'mony, 
and who yet has not quoted it, is Jufin Martyr, 
We have fcarce any Ecclcfiaflical Writer older than 
he, or who comes nearer to the time of Jofephus. 
He wrote his Book o^Jewifi x4ntiquicies towards the 
clofe of the firlt Century, and liv'd four or five 
years in the fecond, as 1 have obferv'd already 3 St. 
Juftin liv'd in the lame age, and flouriili'd in tlie 
Church fome forty years alter the death o^ Jofephus. 
We have amongft his Works a long and learned dif- 
pute with certain Jews^ at whofe head was one 'iry- 
pho^ a man of learning, and note arnonglt his 
Countreymen. The tciiimony oi Jofephus m ho- 
nour o{ Chrift found there a place very naturally: 
He was an Author Si.Jufii/i could not but haveread^ 
and he well knew how to employ it in confounding 
the Jews by the witnels of their own Hillorian. 
St. Juftin had been a Platonick Philofopher before 
heembrac'd Chrillianity, and we plainly fee from his 
manner of difputing with Trypho^ that he knew hcw 

E to 



(i6) 

to manage an argument, and fet off his proofs to ad- 
vantage : is it then to be conceiv'd, that he would 
have ilipM the opportunity of doing honour to the 
Chriftian P^eligion by the teftimony of fo celebrated 
a JeWj as Jo/cpbus was ? 

/^t^/^^/^j has very judicioufly anfwer'd this glaring 
Objeftion in his obfervations upon Eufeblus^ lib. i. 
cap. 12. He has obferv'd i. that the teftimony of 
Jofephus would have had but fmall weight with a 
Jew : And 2. that the delign of St. Juftin was only 
to convince "trypho from paflages in holy Scripture: 
Thefe arguments are very folid, but ftand in need of 
a fuller explication. A 

As to the firli, v/ith regard to the perfon of Jo- ' 
fephus^ 'tis certain his teftimony would not have been 
received by a Jezv^ not only becaufe, as Valefius ob- 
ferves, he was an Author too modern 5 but efpecially 
becaufc he was fallen into difrepute among the Jews 
upon the fubjed of his Religion > he was look'd on 
as half an apoftate. 

The fecond argument is more confiderable. Ju- 
ftin and "frypho had agreed to argue folely from the 
iiuthority of Scripture 5 they were then obhg'd ab- 
(blutely to ftick clofe to that > and this is what Ju- 
y?/;? actually did : Ihave urg^d^ ° fays he, no arguments \ 
but what are taken from Scripture : And a little af^ \ 
ter P Trypho fays, fVe would not have heard you^ if you 
had not fetch d all your arguments^ all your proof s^ from 
holy Scripture. Now let any one judge, whether 
the pafTage of Jofephus could have found admittance 
there. 

Tertullian has alfo wrote again ft the Jews^ but in 
the fame way, and with the fame view as St. Juftin^ 
i. e. he argues againft 'em only from Texts of H. Scrip- 
ture 5 we need but confult the manner he has taken. 
St. Cyprian^ who, as all the world knows, had a 



o' Dial, cum Try phone p. 249. p Ibid. p. 277. 

great 



( ^7 ) 

j great value for the writings of fertuIUayi^ has trod irj 
I the fame Steps, in the tra6t he wrote to prove the 
truth of the Chrillian Religion againit the Jews-^ 
he has there fcarce any thing but naked Texts of Scri- 
pture plac'd one after another, without method or 
reafoning upon 'em > 'tis no wonder then, that he 
quoted not the paflagc of Jofephus. 

As to Origcn^ he has not only in common with 
St. Juflln^ Tcrtullian^ and St. Cyprian not given us 
the pafTageof 7^?/^/?^/^;, but has withal expiefs'd him- 
felf upon the fubje»5l: of 7^/^/)/:?^/ in terms which don't 
feem to agree with the teltimony given to J ejus Chrijl 
in the Book of JewlJJy Antiquities: The Tellimony 
is in exprefs words, that J ejus was the Chrijl : And 
Origen in his Commentary upon the 17^^ chapter of 
Sl.Alatthew f. if. writes that Jofephus did not acknow- 
ledge J efus to be theChrift. Now how could Origen 
Write in this manner if he h-jd read thefe words in 
Jojephils^ Jefus was the Chrijl? But the whole here 
turns upon an equivocal exprellion: We muft clear 
up the matter, and the truth will fully appear from 
the inGght we fliall give into the fenfe of Origen'Sj^ 
pafTage and that of the Hiftorian. 

Origen meant no more, than that Jofephus did not 
acknowledge and embrace Jejiis for the Chrijl^ that 
he was no Chrillian 3 which is the proper (igniiication 
of the Greek word KccraJc-JaiuiJccf, that Origen has 
made ufe of. This will plainly appear from a parallel 
paflagc in Theodoret^ at the end of his Comment up- 
on Daniel^ where he ^ fays, that Jofephus did not 
embrace the Chrijlian Religion. The word then On- 
gen has us'd implies the fame thing with that of The- 
odoret^ only he has exprefs'd himlelf fomewhat more 
fully, for I'heodoret has us'd only the fimple word 
Si^oif^^cg^ and Origen the compound aoLroih^xy^^Q^' 
And it is the idiom of the Greek Tongue to expreli 



E X more 



( z8 ) 

more emphatically by compound, than by fimple and 
primitive verbs. In the fame fenfe Origen in his 
Book againft Celfus has ^ faid, that Jofephus heliev'd 
not in Jefus, as the Chrift. It appears then mani- 
feftly, that his meaning was not different from 'The' 
odorefs: Their expreflions are the fame, and import 
only that Jofephus^ who was born and bred upa 7^w, 
adher'd all his life-time to the Jewijh Religion, and 
wasnever converted to Chriftianity. But as it does not 
follows from the words of 'Theodoret^ that the difpu* 
ted teflimony was not in his time in the Book oi Jo- 
fephus^ fince Eufebius^ St. Jerom^ and Sophronius had 
read it there long before his days, and St. Iftdore who 
liv'd in the fame age with him, had tranfcrib'd it 
thence entire 5 fo we can't conclude, that it was not 
in the Book of Antiquities in the time of Origen^ be- 
caufe he has faid with 'The odor et^ that Jofephus did not 
own Jefus Chrift to be the Mefliah, nor believ'd in 
him. 

We have faid more than is abfolutely neceffary 
for the refolution of this fingle difficulty urg'd a- 
gainfl the paflage, a difficulty borrow'd only from 
one equivocal expreffion, namely, that Jofephus ac- 
knov^7ledg'd not Jefus to be the Chrift^ which may 
lignifie that he has no where declar'd in his works 
that Jefus was the Chrift^ and 'tis in this fenfe the 
Objedors take it 5 or which may mean, that 7^7^- 
phus^ never own'd or embraced by profeffing the 
Chriflian Faith our Saviour as the Mefliah, in which 
fenfe we underiland it. Now our explication has a 
double advantage before the other: i^^. That 'tis 
more literal, and keeps clofer to the meaning of the 
word KArc<,Si^uijS^Qg^ which properly fignifies to re- 
ceive^ to embrace^ to embrace cordially and with all 
cur ftrength^ than the former interpretation, which 
expounds it fimply by the general term to acknoW" 



*^ Lib, I. cl7rt<3i»v 7^ Itjg-S eJiX^ifU), 

Udge^ 



( ^9 ) 

ledge^ or to owu. I'^^y. That the other pafTage I have 
quoted from Origen's^ works confirms the fenfe I 
have put upon this. Now of what force is one 
fingle difficulty, and a difficulty fo ill fupported, a- 
gainft the pofitive and inconteflablc proofs I have 
urg'd to {hew the pafTage of Jofepbus is authentick? 
There can fure be no comparilbn. 

I fhall add but one word more to fhew the weak- 
nefs of this objedion. 'Tis concluded a teltiraony 
that makes fo much for the honour of Jefus Chrifi 
as this pafTage of Jofepbus^ could not have been ex- 
tant in Origen's time, becaufe if it had, he mufl 
have fpoken quite otherwife conc^xmngjofephus than 
he has done j 1 have fhewn this argument turns up- 
on an equivocal expreflion that concludes nothing: I 
add farther, that if we call to mind the age that O- 
rigen liv'd in, and rcfled upon the quotation Eufebi^ 
us has made of this paflage, with the Icafl cafl of an 
eye we ihall difcover the weaknefs of the inference. 
Origen flourifli'd about the middle of the 3^ Centu- 
ry > in the fame Century, and fo me few years after 
him Eufebius had acquir'd a prodigious reputation : 
In his time the tellimony in honour oi Jefus Chriji 
was in the Book oi Jofepbus^ as I have indifputably 
prov'd i can we then fay it was not there in the time 
of Origen? By no means. 

From thefe Authors of the 3^^ Century we freight 
ftep to Photius^ who liv'd in the p^^, and who in re- 
citing the works of Jofepbus makes no mention of 
this pafTage. But without dwelling here upon this 
Authors continual want of exadnefs in the extradirs 
he gives of the Books he has read, I ihall content my 
felf with obferving, that he was not ignorant that 
this teftimony was in the Book oVJewifh Antiquities j 
Eufebius^ Sl.Jerora^Sopbronius^Ifidore^ and Sozomen 
had read it there, and copied it thence : We have 
no reafon to doubt, whether Photius had read Eufe^^ 
iius^ Ifidore and Sazomeny for he himfelf places"''em 

in 



C3o} 

in the number of Books he had read. What con- 
clufion then may we draw from his filence? It muft 
be one of thefe three, either that in turning over 
the Book oVJofephus^ he did not purpofe to recite the 
moft remarkable places, but only fuch as firll pre- 
fented themfelves to the defigns he had in view j 
or, that the teftimony concerning Jefus Chrift was 
fo well known, he had the lefs occafion to quote it i 
or in fine, that feeming fo little agreeable to the 
chara6ter of a Jewijh Hiltorian, he had fome fufpicion 
that it was only, as Mr. Blondel fays, an interpolation 
inferted by fome Chriftian into Jofephus. Of thefe 
conclufions the two former are to me the mofl: pro- 
bable. Photius has been fo irregular and unexa6t in 
his extraft of the very Book, wherein this paljage 
is, that 'tis fcarce poflible to be more fo. Of all this 
valuable Work, which contains the Hiftory of the 
People of God, and is full of very remarkable mat- 
ters, he has confin'd himfelf wholly to the Succeflion 
of High-Prieils in the family oi Aaron ^ and an a- 
bridgment of the Hiflory oi Herod: And this with- 
out any regard to the order of time or place in the 
llories, which Jofephus had rang'd as they ought to 
be. So that no great authority is due to this extra6t 
out of the Book of Antiquities : Photius has taken 
thence what is faid upon the death oijohn theBap- 
tift and of St. James^ he was at his liberty to take 
what he pleas'd, and whether he aded with judg- 
ment or no, is not much to our purpofe : ^ Mr. Huet 
has obferv'd upon this, that Photius was not a man 
who kept clofe to matters of moment, and that he 
ihew'd no great judgment in his choice or omiflion of 
palliiges in the many and divers Books, from which 
he made the coUedion entitul'd his Bibliotheque, 

The laft of the three conclufions, which may be 
drawn from his filence touching the paflage in difputc 



I Dem. Evang. Prop, 3* 

to 



(30 

to wit, that he fufpeftcd it of forgery, is the lead 
i probable of all. Were this the cafe, 1 can't fee why 
inftead of entirely pafling over this place of theHi- 
florian, he, on the contrary, did not mark it as a 
dubious or fuppofititious paflagc. Was then this 
great Patriarch of the Greek Church fo modeft, To 
referv'd, fo fearful, as to conceal his fcntiments con- 
cerning the paflage of Jofephus? Thofc who have 
read Photius's Bibliothcque^ and are in the leaft ac- 
quainted with his hiftory, won't eafily believe that 
circumfpe6i:ion, fearful nefs, and referve, were the 
caufe of his not mentioning the paflage in the Book 
of Antiquities. And to fuppofe, that having found 
it quoted by Eiifebiiis^ St. Ifidore^ and Sozomen^ who 
have all three urg'd it againft the Jews as a trium- 
phant evidence for the Chriftian Faith, he was afraid 
to offend the Publick by declaring againft it, is to 
afcribe to the Patriarch fuch defigns, as in no wife 
agree with his charadter, and of which he has not 
given the leaft intimation in his writings. 

And when all's done, what is this to the point in 
difpute? It is nothing to us, what opinion Photius^ 
in the p^^ Century, had or had not of this paflage: 
The queftionis whether or no it holongsio Jofephus : 
Pbotius has not faid that it does not j Eufebius^ Ruf- 
finus^ St. Jerom^ Sophronius^ Ificlore^ and Sozomen 
have faid that it does; and they have not only faid 
io, but urg'd the teftimony as an argument againft 
the infidel J^iyj ; Whom then fhall we at this day 
give our felves up to.^ To Pbotius^ who has faid no- 
thing neither for nor againft the pafHige, or to all 
thefe other pious and learned men, who have not 
fcrupled to receive it as genuine, and who fay they 
have read it in Jofephus himfelf. 'Tis plain which fide 
is to be taken : There's no room left for choice. 



CHiiP, 



(3^ 



Chap. VI. 

The ohjeB'ion agamji this pcijfage^ that 
His fo til plac'd in the Book ofAnttqui- 
tksy that His incredible Jofephus put 
it therey anfwefd. 

MR. Cappel firft flarted this objedtion, and o- 
thers who cahie after him have urg'd it in 
their turn with all poflible advantage, to prove the 
paiTage fuppofititious. Mr. le Nain T!iUemont is of o- 
pinion, ^ that 'tis one of the mofl perplexing argu- 
ments on that fide the queftion, and thinks it not fo 
eafily anfwer'd as the others. 'Tis faid, the pafiage 
in the place where it (lands breaks the thread of the 
difcourfe, and has no relation with what goes before 
or follows after it. Juft before Jofephus gives an ac- 
count of a fedition the Jews had rais'd agamft Pilate^ 
for which they w^ere punifli'd j next follows the te- 
ilimony concerning our Saviour: Whei'e, fay they, 
is the connexion? Immediately after the Hillorian 
fpeaks of a fecond misfortune which befel the Jews^ 
Another fad accident^ fays he, cans'" d much trouble^ 6cc. 
The word another muft relate to a foregoing, which 
-was the fedition againft Pilat0 : And thus thefe two 
events being united one to another by the fame terms 
in the Hiftorian, the tellimony which is interpos'd, 
and has no relation to thefe matters, ferves only to in- 
terrupt the difcourfe, and throw all out of order. But 
Jofephus^ fay they, was a man of more judgment, and 



s Hi,(l. dcs Emp, Tom. i. part, i, dans les Notes. 

knew 



( 33 ) 

knew better the art of difpofing every thing in its 
proper place, than to deface the beauty and neatnefs 
of his difcourfe by Rich confufion-, lince then we 
can't impute it to him, it mull be the work of fome 
other, who not knowing where to thrufl- in this te- 
ilimony of Cbrijl Jefus^ rafhly and inconiid(rrately 
plac'd it there. 

This argument may perplex fuch as have not read 
in JofephtiS the paflages under confideration, or who 
have not read 'em wjth fufficient reflexion. The 
Learned are not the leail apt to be impos'd on by a 
iirfl: reading, and when once the mind is turn'd afide 
by the impreflion that reading has made, it does not 
eafily come to its felf again : Great men are fubjedt 
to this weaknefs; As 1 find my fclf far inferior to 
them, I for thisreafon read a paflage ever and over, 
and miflrufling always my firil judgment I ftrive 
not to form my fentiments 'till after a reiterated ex- 
amination. With this dillrull of my felf, andcircum- 
fpedl confidcration of the prevening opinions of o- 
thers, I have read over attentively in the Hiflorian 
all that I thought could give light into this affair > and 
after all, this pretended mifplacing the paffage, a- 
gainfl which we hear fuch loud exclamations, to 
me feems to proceed from the wrong idea men have 
of it. And as to the confequence which is thence 
drawn again ft the genuinenefs of the palTage, 1 think 
it would be null, tho' we allow'd the paffage was 
mifplac'd and broke the thread of the difcourfe. I 
Ihall give my reafons both for the one and the other. 

I fliall begin with examining the place of the te- 
Himony given oi Jefus Chriji y 'tis the 4^^ chap, of 
the iS^^^ Book of the Antiquities. In the entrance 
upon this chapter we find the account of an adion 
equally barbarous and imprudent in Ptiate foon after 
hisarnval mjudoca^^ whiiher he had been fent Go- 
vernor by the Emperor Tiberius, Being yet at C^- 
fmea he caus'd in the dead of the night, and when 

F none 



(34) 



jione of the Jews were aware of it, the Roman Stan- 
dards to be planted in Jerufalem^ upon which was fi- 
gured the Image of the Emperor: And as the Laws 
of Mofes expreflly prohibited to the Jews the ufe of 
Images, they were much difturbed at what they faw 
the new Governor was about to introduce into the 
City. Hereupon they fent to him divers of the mofl: 
confiderable among 'em with a petition for a remo- 
val of the Roman Standards out of the Town : Pi- 
late who thought by this means to make his Court 
to the Emperor, refus'd to comply with their demand, 
but at length yields to their arguments and importu- 
nities, and carry's back the Standards to C^farea. 

From the recital of this firil adion of Pilate Js" 
fephtis pafles on to a fecond, which was attended with 
worfe confequences than the former : That had blown 
over without much noife and trouble, but it far'd 
not fo with the fecond. Pilate had a defign of ma- 
Icing an Aqusedud to bring water into Jerufalem. 
As the place from whence it was to be brought was 
at fome diftance from the City, and for that reafon 
requir'd a great expence, he purpos'd to take money 
out of the Holy Treafury, nam'd Corbanj where- 
with to defray the charge. The Jews took this ve- 
ry heinoully, and refolving not to let the fums de- 
£gn'd for Holy Ufes be employed in the ornament of 
their City, or the publick benefit, without which 
fhey had hitherto always been contented, form'd 
themfelves into a Body to withftand it, and went in a 
tumultuous manner to make theircomplaints toPilatey 
infulting him with menaces and injurious language. 
The T?^;;^^;^ jealous of his authority haughtily receiv'd 
the crowding multitude, and having given a fign to 
the Soldiers he had about him to quell the fedition, 
divers were wounded, and fome kill'd. After this 
ilory immediately come the words, y^t the fame tim^ 
^here was one J c{us^ a wife man^ 6cc, 

To know whether they hold their proper place 

with 



(35) 

with regard to the two foregoing fafe, we have no- 
thing more to do than to fee whether the order oi' 
time is here well obferv'd. Eufihius in his Chro- 
nicon places the firll of Pilate\ actions in the 
3 i^' year of our Saviour: But Scaliger in his Notes up- 
on that Author's Chronicon^ and after him P^alefius m 
his Notes upon theEcclefiaftical Hiftory have ihewn 
that attempt of the Roman Governor to bring the ima- 
ges into the City, ought to be fet three'or four years be- 
fore the time Eufehius has given it \ and indeed the 
matter's very evident. Pilate was made Governor 
in Jud^a about the year of our Lord 27. or z8. he 
was fcarce arriv'd there, before he attempted to plant 
the Roman Standards in the Temple j this then hap- 
pen'd about the year of Cbrifi 27. or 18. and not as 
Eufehius has imagin'd in the 32^. 

The fecond hd: which Jofcphus relates at the heels 
of this, namely the ^z^igw of taking money out of 
the holy Trealury to defray the charges of the A- 
qua:dLia: Pilate had a mind to make, Eufehius places 
in the year of our Lord 54. which was the year af- 
ter his death: Scaliger is of opinion Eufehius is here 
again millaken, and that tliis matter fell out fome- 
what fooner. However thcfe points in Chronologv be 
decided,'tis certain they all happen'd mjudcea but a few 
years -sSttx Pilate was made Governor there, and he 
continued not in that pofl above ten or eleven years. 

But it was precifely at the time thefe things hap- 
pen'd, our Saviour appear'd and taught in Judu-ea, 
John the Baptill, his torerunncr, had cnter'd upon 
the Minillry, which made him fo famous, in the 
if^^ year of the Emperor Tiherius^ as we Icarn from 
St. Luke chap. 3. y. i. Pilate had then two years 
difcharg'd the office of Governor in Judaea -y fix 
months after John the Baptiif Jefus Cbrifi ilicw'd 
himfelf openly > and cofifequently in the 3^ or 4^^ 
y €2(1' o^ Pilate : The teilimony concerning him in the 
Book of Antiquities is fet down about the fame time 

F 2 and 



( 30 

^nd nnmediatcly after two ftories which in fa£t went 
before it , where could it have been plac'd better ? Hi- 
therto then there's not the leaft want of orders and 
half our way is got over. To go on : The other half 
is yet behind j and here lyes the difficulty, which is 
thought not eafily to be mafter'd. To come to 
the point then. 

Next after the teilimony concerning Jefus Cbrift 
ftreight follow thefe words in the Hiilorian : Mout 
the fame time another fad accident gave the Jews much 
trouble : But what fell out in the time of Jefus Chrift^ 
or what was faid in the article concerning him, that 
gave trouble to his nation? Certainly nothing at all : 
Why then is it faid another misfortune, another fid 
accident F 

Mr, Jrnauld Dandilly^ who has publidi'd a Tranf- 
lation of Jofephus^ that is very much valu'd and de- 
fervesto be fo, inftead of the'words another misfor-^ 
tune^ has render'd the paflage, there jell out a great 
misfortune-^ this would entirely remove the difficulty, 
» was the tranflation juft, but alas ! in Jofephus 'tis a- 
nother misfortune, not a great misfortune : and aTranf- 
lator ought not to change the fenfe of his Author by 
putting one word for another. Let us leave the paf- 
fage as it is 3 and fee only what could be the mean- 
ing of the Hiftorian. Now I readily allow the ac- 
count given of the ill accident which befell the Jews 
has no manner of connexion with the foregoing te- 
ilimony^ but it has relation to the misfortunes reciy 
ted in the beginning of the chapter, and this was 
all that Jofephus defign'd. He fet in its proper place, 
as I have fhewn, the paflage concerning J^/i/j Chrift-, 
but becaufe in fo doing he had broke the thread of 
his difcourfe, which turn'd upon divers troublefom^ 
misfortunes that happen'd to the Jews^ he here re- 
fumes his fubje6i:, and recounts a third accident, 
which gave 'em much trouble, and thus he relates it: 
at length in the following chapter. 

A cer= 



iS7) 

A certain Jezv^ who was one of the 'wickedeft 
wretches upon the face of the earth, and was forc'd 
to fly his country to avoid the ftroke of publick jii- 
ilice, in concert with three others no better thanhim- 
fclf, fct up at Rome^ where abode many of the Jews^ 
for an Expofitor of the Laws of Afo/es. By this 
pretence tliey prevaiPd upon a Woman of quality, 
nam'd Fulvia^ who had come over to the JewiJJj Re- 
ligion, to fend large Oblations to JernfaUmy and 
the Lady committing 'em to their charge, they con- 
verted 'em to their own private ufe. When Saturni- 
nus^ her husband, was inform'd of this, he made his 
complaints of it to Tiherius^ who was fo cnrag'd at the 
deed, that he forthwith commanded all ihejews to 
depart out of the City. There were divers put to 
grievous tortures, and to the number of 4000 ba- 
niHi'd, and fent away for Sardinia. Jacitus in his 
annals '^places this banifliment of ihtjeivs '\n the ^^^ 
year of Tiberius's reign, and by confequence eight 
years before Pilate was made Governor oijuda.% for 
he received not his Commiflion 'till the 13^^ year of 
that Emperor, So that this unfortunate affair, which 
Jofephus refers to in the words following the tefli- 
mony concerning Cbrifl^ at the fa?nc time fell out ano- 
ther fad accident^ happen'd nine years at leafl, before 
the ilory of the Roman Standards which Jofephus 
teils firll 5- and eleven or twelve, before the fedition 
in Jerufakm on account of the Corhan^ which Pi- 
late would have employ'd m making an Aqiixdu6b. 

From all this it appears, that the words, in .the 
fame time ^ and thofe, another ill accident^ refpe6l:ed 
only the (lime things, /. e. the misfortunes of the 
Jews^ which had in like manner been related in the 
Je'wifl) Hiftory, v/irhout any defign fo to unite 'em 
together, as if they had all fell out diredly one after 



'■ Lib. 2. art. 25. 

another, 



( 38 ) 

another, fince that which is told lafl went before the 
two former fcveral years. 

We may hence learn withal, what mighty reafon 
there is for extolling fo high the exa6tnefs of this Hi- 
florian in time and chapter. I fliall give a flagrant in- 
flanceof it from this very place. Jofephm was upon 
the hiftory of the firfi: years of Pilate's Government, 
jufl before he came to fpeak o^ Jefus Chrift-, next 
follows his account of the expulfion of the Jews 
from Rome divers years before Pilate was fent into 
Jud^a^ and then he returns to the mention of ano- 
ther fa6l:5 wherein Pi/<^^e was concern'd : For itreight 
he " gives a relation of an a6t of cruelty, that Pilate ex- 
ercised upon the S^.maritans on mount Gerizim /Which 
a6t of inhumanity he committed in the iaft year of 
his Government. The Samaritans made their jud: 
complaints to VitelUus^ Governor of Syria^ upon 
"whom the Government of Jud^a then depended. 
VitelUus heard their grievances, and order'd Pilate 
forthwith to Rome^ to anfwer before the Emperor 
the accufations exhibited againffc him. Pilate obey'd, 
and never after return'd into Judaa, The order of 
time can't fure be lefs obferv'd than in the recital of 
thefe ftories, nor hiftorical fads be plac'd more out 
of order than thefe are. And how many other in- 
ilances of the like nature might we find in this hi- 
florian, if we would be at the trouble of an enquiry ? 
How many withal in this large number where we 
iliould find the words. In tbefame time^ :^ rbVov toV 
y.xi^QVy or yj Tiirov rov y.^ovovy which begin the account 
urg'd againil: us, which follow the tellimony in ho- 
nour of our Saviour, and which feem to have been 
the favourite exprelTion of this Author, as being 
brought in upon all occafions. 1 fliall give but two 
infrances. 

'Tis indifputable, that Nahum wrote the Book of 

" Jcfeph. Antiq. Jud. lib. 18. cap. 5. 

4 his 



( 39 ) 

his prophecy againft Nhriveh^ after the King of ylf» 
Jyria had deflroy'd the Kingdom of Ifraely ^ now 
this happen'd in the p^^^ year of Hofca^ King o^Ifrael^ 
and in the i z^^ oi Ahax King o^Judah^ the fon of 
King Jotham : yet Jofephus by an anachronifm of 1 2. 
or I 3 . years places the time of Nahum's prophecy at 
the clofe of the reign of King Jotham^ and makes 
life of the fime exprellion he had always fo ready at 
t hand : ^At the fame time there appeared a Prophet^ na^ 
med Nahum, vjho foretold the fibverfion of the Afly- 
rian Empire^ and the de fir nation ^/Niniveh. 

I finci too the fame expreflion in another place^ 
where the tranfpofition is more remarkable than the 
foregoing: 'Tis in this very 18='^ Book of Antiqui- 
ties, in the chapter immediately going before that of 
the teflimony which is difputed under the vain pre- 
text of a tranfpofition or wrong placing the ftories 
related in the 4'^^ chapter. 

Jofephus then gives an account in the 3"^ chapter 
of the advancement of T!iberiiis to the Throne of the 
Roman Empire, and the prodigious pains Herod the 
Tetrach took to gain the favour of the New Empe- 
ror 5 and then adds. At this ti?ne ivas Phraates Ki^g 
of the Parthians treacheroufy murdered by Phraataces 
his Son. But this fell out according to the learned 
Chronologer x Ufier 20 years before the birth of Je- 
fus Chrifj and confequently ij. or 38. before the 
3"^ year of the reign ofl^ibe^ius^ in which w^ere tranf- 
aded the other matters related in this place of the 
Book of Antiquities, ;'. e. the reign of Vonones in the 
Kingdom of Parthia^ and the death of Antiochus 
Kmg of Comagena : Concerning whom confult l^a- 
citus^ lib. 2. with the Notes of Lipfms. 

To talk after this of tlie pretended mifplacing the 
Gonteiled padage, and to build this imaginary want 



^^' 1 Kings 16. r, CT- 17 <^- '^ Autiq. Jud.iib. p.c.ip. z, ad fin. 
yf^/cr. anno mundi 3984. 

of 



( 40 ) 

of order upon the expreffion following it. At that 
time^ is the mod idle thing in the world : For firfl, 
the pafTage comes directly as it ought, after fuch 
fa6ts as went before it 3 and fecondly, as to the To- 
ries following, it was very ufual with Jofephus to 
mifplace his accounts, according as the particular fub- 
jc6ls he was upon led him. 

Befides, we mull: not look upon thefe little irre- 
gularities in place, as a fault which deferves much to 
be charg'd upon him, or was particular in him. 
There's fcarce an Hiftorian to be nam'd, in whom 
we may not find the like upon a clofe examination. 
^ Cafauhon has remark'd divers in Thucydides^ Poly^ 
hius^ and Livy^ three Hiftorians of the greateft emi- 
nence, the two former among the Greeks^ and the 
third among the Latins. This is the befl excufe wc 
can make for theunexadnefs in the order of fads and 
events related by an Hiilorian. 

As to the confequence drawn from the pretence, 
that the difputed paflage is out of its true place, I 
afTert that were it fo (tho' I have prov'd the con- 
trary) there could thence be drawn no juft conclu- 
Hon again (I its genuinenefs, nor any found argument 
form'd to fhew Jojephus was not its Author: Other- 
wife the fame thing muft be faid of all the other paf-^ 
fages in that hiilorian, that are far more out of or- 
der, than this can be. The reafon why it Hands 
where it does is, becaufe Jofephus found no place 
where he could put it better: and who is there ihall 
difpute this reafon with him? An Author is as much 
mafter of his pen, as his thoughts, and fo of the or- 
der he pleafes to obferve in particular cafes, which 
order as it may be divers ways conne6bed with other 
fads, the Hiilorian at fometimes may have one view, 
and the Reader another : The genuinenefs of the 
paflage will be the fame throughour^ and a mere er- 






*Exerctii z. in ^r.n. 2L 

" ror 



( 41 ) 

jor in pkce, how fenfible foever, will never anioum 
to a proof of irs being ^org'd. But as 'tis not our 
buiincfs here to icafon logically upon the nature of 
confcquenccs, I fliail fay no more to fliew this is not 
jullly drawn: 'tis fufficicnt that the principle it goes up- 
on is found falfe, and I am apt to imagine the argu- 
ments I have urg'd agamil it are unanfwerable j they 
are all grounded on fads taken from 'Jofephus himfclf^ 
and fuch fa6ts as Hand fupported by an incontcllablc 
Chronology. 



Chap. VII. 

An anfwer to fome other lefs confiderahle 
arguments ur^d agamfi the autheritkk^ 
nefs of this paragraph. 

IArn uncertain, whether any of the oppofers of 
this paiTage, except Mr. le Fe--jre^ have added to 
the other arguments they have urg'd, the difference of 
rtyle in this place with the ilyle of the hiftorian. 
Mr. le Fevre has imagined he difcern'd it, and as he was 
much pradis'd in the art of judging of the flyle of 
Latin and Greek Authors, he had form'd to himfelf 
fo exquifite a Tafle, that few Men in this point came 
up to him. But it is with the Talte of the Mind as 
with that of the Tongue and Palate j thefmalleft trifle 
is fomctimes able to put it out of order 3 theleall im- 
prefnon of a Ifrange humour changes its Taile, and 
the finer and more delicate it naturally is, the more 
apt it is to be eafily akcr'd. The caie is much the 
flimc in the Tafte of the mind with regard to Criti- 
cal judgments} the leail prejudice in favour of this 
O or 



^m.- 



( 4X ) 

or that fide the queftion is, as I may fay, like an hu- 
mour upon the tongue, it leaves there an impreflion 
which alters the Taile, and inchnes a man to make a 
difcovery which ethers are not ienfible of. This is 
what we End in the prefent cafe in Mr. 1e Fevre^ and 
Mr. Haet^ Bifhop of Arranches^ both men of learn- 
ing, and of an excellent t.afle in Criticifm. Mr. U 
Fe'ure has difcover'd in the language of this paragragh 
in the Book of Antiquities fomewhat lefs polite and 
exad than in the reft of the work : Mr. Huet ^ can 
perceive nothing like it, he has read it often, exa- 
min'd its phrafes, conftruclions, words, and ^nds 
nothing foreign to the ftyle of the Jewijh hiftorian. 

Mr. Dauhuz^ ^ a learned Clergyman in England 
has fince wrote a Diflertation in defence of the ge- 
nuinenefs of this pafiage, and as he appears to have 
been v^ell vers'd in the Greek tongue, has apply 'd 
himfelf to a refearch, which nobody, I'm of opini- 
on, ever made before him 3 namely to ihew, that the 
ilyle of this pafiage is in fuch wife JofepJms's^ that he 
has produc'd divers places from the works of this hi- 
storian, wherein we find the fame manner of fpeak- 
mg as in this pafiage. We are obliged to this learned 
Man for the trouble he has given himfelf of making 
fo exa6i: an enquiry into the words and phrafes of his 
Author, which is equally painfull and tedious. But 
Yvx may well difpenfe with entering into this detail: 
for 'tis their part, who give out that there is a difix^- 
rence in the ityle of a contelted pafiage, and who are 
for drawing thence an argument to ihew it belongs 
not to the fame Author, as do the other works we 
have of his, to produce proofs of this difference, and 
fuch proots as are convincing. A word, or a con- 
ihiiclion of a pafiage, VNrhich do not other v/ife occur 
in an Author's works, are not fufHcient> unlefs it be 



% 



^ Dem. Evang. prop. 3. 

^' Carol. Danhuz pro leilim. Jofephi, 

a word 



(43 ) 

a word To dillingunvd, that we muH own it was not 
in ufe 'till a long time after 3 fuch as arc, for indancc, 
the proper names of pcrfons, or certain terms appro- 
priated Lo particular controverfies fprung up iince 
the death of the Writer whofe ftyle is examined, or 
fome other like differences, as can have no place here. 
'I'is bciides fo difficult a matter to judge furely of the 
ityle of ancient Writers, that the moil learned Cri- 
ticks are continually divided in their judgments upon 
this head : Inllanccs of this kind are innumerable. I 
Jiave already mention'd Sophro:nus^ the Tranflator of 
St. Jerom's trad de fcriptorihus Ecckfuijllcis. Eraf- 
mus^ who, as all the world has own'd, was a very 
great Critick, il^w nothing in his language, which 
might not really belong to that Greek Author > the 
Learned John Gerard Vojjltis was of the frme opinion j 
his Son Ifaac VoJJiiis had a contrary fentiment, as 
Mr. Dit Pin informs us in the article of St. Jerom. 
Here then we fee very learned Criticks difrering in 
their notions upon a whole Work> and yet a judg- 
ment here is much more eafy than upon a finglc paf- 
^\gG of ^^wcn or eight fentences : How then can wg 
determine concerning this paragraph, that its iryle is 
not the fame with Jofephus's ? The differences in fuch 
a cafe fhould be very vifiblej but here there are none 
ilich. 

Befides, we ought to conddcr, that neither the 
learned Huetius^ nor any others, who have found the 
ilyie of this paffage exa6i:ly agreeable to the ffylc of 
jofephiis^ have urg'd it as an argument to prove the 
pallage is certainly his j nothing would be more un- 
reafonablc, and therefore no body ever thought of it : 
I'o take up v/ith fuch pitiful arguments would be di- 
redly to initil into the publick a prejudice to the d'^S- 
advantage of the caufe we defend. We know very 
well, that two Authors may write exadlly in the fame 
ilyle, efpecially for feven or eight fentences together, 
>vhere the counterfeit has ftudied the Author's man- 

G 2. ner 



( 



44 ) 



iier or writing, under whofe name he would have 
the forgery pais. All we can fay upon the agreement 
of language in this place with the writings of Jofe- 
phus^ is only to oppofe it to the pretended difagree- 
ment fome have given out they have here found, and 
from whence they have form'd an argument againfl 
this pafTage: If they had not made a^i attack from 
that quarter, we fliould never have oppos'd our 
counter-battery from the conformity of his flyle. 

Mr. Simon has us'd a like addrefs in the Epifile of 
his Critical Bibliotheqae: The ftro?igcli argument^ 
^^ fays he, urg'd to prove the difputed paffage Joiephus'j 
is^ that 'tis incredible he jloould have [aid nothing con- 
cerningjefus Chrift. Jofephus has faid one word of 
him, which is equivalent to m.any others, where 
fpeaking of ^i. James in terms much to his advan- 
tage, as I have elfewhere noted, he adds, that he was 
the brother <?/ Jefus, nsjho was called Chriif . If befides 
this any of the Writers in defence of this paflage had 
urg'd, that 'twas not probable jofephus^ who liv'd 
fo near the time of Jejus Chrifl^ iliould fay nothing 
more of him in his hiftory of the Jews^ they would 
never have produced this argument for m.ore than a 
very probable conjedure, and not as conclufivej and 
'tis a manifefl: injury in Mr. Simon to fay, that the 
firongeft argument we have for the pa(fage in difpute is., 
that 'tis incredible ]o{^^h\\% jloould jay nothing (?/Jefus 
Chrift. 'Tis to give his Readers an idea that the ar- 
guments brought to prove the paflage authentick are 
m a manner all ridiculous. For is it not the height of 
ridicule to build an opinion upon no ftronger argu- 
ment than this trifle, Vs^hich amounts to well 
nigh nothing.^ Our arguments are the MSS. oi Jo- 
fephus^ and the quotations of ancient Authors-, thefe 
I have urg'd, and fet in a proper light: And thefe 
won't be eaflly got over. 



^ Tom. 1. Lettre 2. a la fin. 

The 



( 45 ) 

The only thing that can be reply'd to thefe quota- 
tions is that they are taken from Eiifehim^ fo that by this 
means they may be reduc'd to one only, and laid to the 
charge of that ancient Prelate : 1 have fhewn that this 
artifice gives the lye to the Authors of thefe quotations, 
fince none of 'em have copied from Eiifehius^ but 
have all tranfcrib'd the paflage from Joftphus himfelf : 
I can't forbear faying this, becaufe I find not with- 
out adonifhment the lateii; writers upon this head flill 
go on to deceive thcmfelves and the publick with 
this falfe fuggellion. But to return to Mr. Simon^ 
who has been the occafion of this fmall digreffion. 

F hot ins ^ fays he, furniJJjes us with an anf-ojer^ by 
ohfcvjing that Juflus of Tiberias has made no mention 
c/ Jcfus Chrifb, becaufe he was a Jew by nation and 
religion. Mr. Simon would infmuate, that Jofephus 
has not fpoken of our Saviour for the fame reafon, be- 
caufe he was of the race and religion of the y<?'Z2;j-, in 
like manner vjiihjuftus o{ Tiberias: But there was a 
great deal of difference between them. This Juflus 
of Tiberias^ a contemporary with Jofephus^ and his 
bitter enemy, w^as a man of a very forry character, 
and withal fo paffionate in all he wrote, that no con- 
fequence can be drawn from him to Jofephics^ either 
for matters related or omitted in his hiitory. There 
he flievv'd the mofl wifdom, when ^ he faid nothing 
c/ Jefus Chrift, either of what happened to him^ cr of 
his miracles. If he had fpoke upon tins head with 
his wonted paflion, as moll certainly he would have 
done, he would have had an hundred occafions of 
biulhing at his impofmre j ^ truth would have fprung 
out of the earthy for he WTote at a time all "Judtca was 
fiird with eye-witnefTes of the life, death, and mira- 
cles oijefus Chrift.^ and for every fpark of truth that 
dropt from him hiscnrag'd zealagainft the Chriftj'an 
Fauh would have almoll tore his heart out : the fa- 



«rhot. art, 48. ^Pf.85. ir. 

feft 



(40 

feft way for him was to pafs over the whole ftory m 
lilence. Jofephus was of a very different charaAerj 
and had reafons to mention Jefus Chrift^ which Ju- 
ftus of fiherias had not, and to fpeak of him too m 
the advantagious manner we have feen. We iliall 
find thefe reafons upon an enquiry into his charafer, 
and himfelf fhall difcover to us the fecret fprings of 
his defign j without this it would be rafhnefs to go 
in quefl of *em. But before we enter upon this v/orkj 
we muft again take in hand the teflimony he has gi- 
ven of Jefus Chrift^ and let no part of it pafs without 
examination. 



Chap. VIII. 

^n examination of the feveral expref- \ 
ftons in the dtfputed tefiimonyy which 
occafiQH the fufpicion of its being fpti-- 
rious. 



At that time^ to wit, in the days o^ PUate the 
Governor of Judaa^ and in the year 1 have 
fpecify'd. 

IVas Jefus, or Jefus fhew'd himfelf openly, who 
'till that time had lain as it were conceal'd in Naza- 
reth^ in a corner of Galilee. 

A learned man will have the fenfe of the Author 
here to be, At that time there was o;^^ Jefus \ which 
in no wife agrees with the manner Jofephus has fpo- 
ken of our Saviour, under the head of St. James^ for 
the expreflion one naturally implies contempt. But 
the Author of this remark here a little forgot him- 
felf} iox'tisnoi Jofephus^ who has faid ^;^^ Jefus, he 

has 



( 47 ) 

has faid only Jefus-^ nor is there any edicion, which 
iias ic otheiwife: "Th Eufehiiis^ who not having Jo- 
/I'pLh'is's Book before him, has thro' miftake in his 
Ecclefiadical Hiftory reciting this paflage put, ^t 
that time there was one Jefus^ UaSg tkj tho* the word 
Ti? is wanting in his Evangelical Dcmonftration. 

A^cvife man: That is, a juft, a pious, a religious 
man, one who had great infight into the affairs of 
Religion and Virtue. Hitherto there is no difficulty j 
and all the Hiiiorians of that time, were they in the 
leall (inccreand impartial, might without being Chri- 
Itians have given this teftimony of our Savioiu'. 

If yet we may call him a man. Here then we begin 
to lofe fight of the Jew^ and difcover the Chri- 
ilianj and hence proceed the fufpicions that the paf- 
{■^g(t is fpurious. 

The common verfioi^s of this expreffion in the 
Original ferve not a little to confirm thefe fufpicions. 
Some liave tranflated the words thus, if yet we may 
name him only a 7?ian'y others, // yet we ought to con- 
fider him only as a man, and others, if it be lawfull 
to call him a man. 

All thefe tranflations carry the point too far, and 
make the hillorian fay more than he did: his words 
are plain, w^e ought then to give 'em in their native 
fimplicity, and tranflate 'em literally, as did St. Je- 
rom, s If yet we may call him a man : The Greek im- 
plies no more, why then don't we keep to the pro- 
per terms of it? The reafon 1 fuppofe is, we would 
have Jofephus carry his thought tarrher, and infinu- 
ate by halves, what hedar'd not to fpeak out openly, 
to wit, that Jefus was GOD. Sozomen is ih^ firll", 
who afcrib'd thefe fentimenrs to him, when after 
having recited the principal parts of the teflimony, 
hemakes this reflexion, more becoming his zeal for 
tlie Chrillian Faith, then it was the mark of a pe- 



£<yf ai'^a^d cw(o} A;ye-;t X«-/;. 

netrating 



( 48 ) 

netrating judgment or a juflnefs of thought y To me^ 
^ fays he, when I hear Jolephus giving this ac- 
count^ he almofi abfolutely declares^ that Chrifl: is God, 
None of the others who have quoted this tefti- 
mony found in it what Sozomen thought he faw 
there. They were more referv'd than he in the 
ufe they made' of it, and contented themfclves 
■with the proper and natural fenfe of the expref- 
lions, which was fufficicntly honourable to our 
Saviour without fearching for a more fublime 
meaning. However by little and httle this fenfe of 
it prevailed, and fo furniili'd the oppofers of the 
authenticknefs of the palTage with the moil plaufible 
means of forming their attacks j infomuch that I 
have not feen one, who charges this teftimony upon 
a Chriftian, that has not taken up with this fignifi- 
cation. They employ their whole ftrength in (hew- 
ing the abfurdity of the notion, thatay^-ic;, zsjofe- 
phus was, had he beiiev'd Jefus to be the MciTiah, 
ihould yet own him to be God : and here they fpare 
for no pains to prove that the Jews never expeded a 
MeiHah who was to be God j all they dreamt of was 
that he ihould be a great King, who would reftore to 
the Jews their ancient fplendor by greater viiflories 
than David's^ and enrich them with a plenty of all 
things by far more abundant than their Fathers en- 
joyed under the government of Solomon, Thus do 
they purfuc their own Shadow, v/hilft they bufy 
themfelves in proving what no body will deny 'em : 
and the misfortune is, they leave the truth 'behind 
'em in the purfuit. 

As tothe expredionof i7(?7%)te5 there's nothing fo 
very unufual or furpnzing in it,'tis only an exaggerating 
and hyperboHcal manner of Ipeech. The wifdom 
and virtue of Jcfu's Ch?:ft were more than common, 
Jud^ah^di never feen chc like before, efpecially iince 

•"IimI h Sozom. lib. I. p. 1. 

God 



(49 ) 

God had ceas'd to fend Prophets to the Jewi, John 
the Bciptift, 'tis true, had been an extraordinary man, 
his fermons and his Baptifm had drawn after him a 
vaft concourfc of people, the very Sanhedrim had 
fent to him their delegates from Jerufalem into the 
defert, to learn from his own mouth, whether he 
had an exprefs commiflion from God, and if he was 
not the Mefliah, for at that time the whole nation 
expeded his coming. But the glory ot John the 
Baptill; was confin'd to the preaching repentance with 
a zeal which charm'd his hearers, and to invite them 
to his Baptifm. By thefe two marks it Hands diftin- 
guifh'd in Jofephus^ in a paflagel have above recited. 
Thefe endowments were infinitely valuable, they de- 
rived their fource from heaven, but the Holy Man 
had not receiv'd the gift of mh'acles, he wroughc 
not one. For want of fo divine a power John the 
Baptift could have merited no other title than that of 
an extraordinary man, an admirable man, a man 
whom fo many excellent qualifications had lifted up a- 
bove the ordinary race of mankmd, above the mofl 
eminent in the Church o{ Ijrael. Our Saviour ap- 
pear'd ^\^ months after him, but with fuch tranlccn- 
dent fplendor and holinefs about him, as quite etfac'd 
the light of his forerunner: To thefe mighty talents 
was added the divine power of working miracles, 
which he wrought in fuch abundance, and in fo ma- 
ny different kinds, that no place was exempt from 
being a witnefs of 'em : Provinces, towns, boroughs, 
defcrts, all expos'd to view the miracles, which Jc- 
fus Chrift had done there. What could the jewijb 
hiftorian fay upon this? Ignorant of it he was not, 
and tho' he had not been an eye-witnefs of what was 
done, for he was not born in Judcea 'till about four 
years after our Saviour's death, yet the cafe was much 
the fame, as if all had pais'd under his ov^n eyes. It 
v/as iK)t then too much, nay, it had been but very 
little, to name Jefus a wife man-, wifdom, pictv^ and 

H ' All 



( p ) 

all moral virtues joy n'd together carry not our noti- 
ons of the polTeffor higher than of a man *, there mufl 
have been fomething in him more divine than all 
thefej and what can there be in a man more divine 
than a power to give fight to them who were born 
bli^"'d, by a words fpeakingto heal the moil incurable 
difeafes, to calm the rage of the Sea when the wa- 
ters thereof fwell'd with tempelts, to raife the dead, 
and fo to fhew himfelf the mailer of nature ? All this 
had Jefus done, he was then iomcwhat more than 
man, and it was too little upon all thefe confidera- 
tions to name him but a man. 

Jofcphus has faid no more, nor can more be ga- 
ther'd from his manner of writing. But we cut off 
the words, if isje may call him a man^ and having fe- 
parated 'em from the reft, we turn 'cm to what fenfe 
we plcafe, we give 'em a conllru61:ion far different from 
the hiilorian's meaning, and which has no connexion 
wi-th his words. Let us leave then the Interpreters, 
and hear only the Hillorian : At that time was JcCus^ 
a wife man^ if yet ive may call him a man ^ for he work d 
miracles. The word for^ which joyns thefe words to 
the following, determines the fenfe in fuch fort, that 
'tis furpnzing another meaning could be invented to 
metamorphofe an infpir'd perfon into a God, by ima- 
gining Jofephus defign'd to fiy, that Jefus was God, 
becaufe 'twas i^ot enough to call him a mere man, 
who had wrought fo ip.any miracles. 

If a Pagan had thus exprefs'd himfelf upon the 
Subject of a man, in whom he had obferv'd a more ' 
than common knowledge and virtue, and by whom , 
he had feen fome great miracle done, 'twould not be j 
altogether irrational to (uppofe, that in faying of i 
this man, // yet we may call him a man^ he had meant ■ 
that he was a God 5 becauie we know very well, 'twas a i 
commonly receiv'd opinion among them, that their , 
Gods oft took upon 'em human fhape, and came down \ 
to travell upon earthy like ordinary men ; Of this we | 

^ have j 



have a very remarkable inftance in the 14^'^ chapter 
of the J6ts of the x'^poftles. Paul and Barnabas be- 
ing come to Lyjira^ a City of the Greeks in Lycaonm^ 
preach'd the Gofpel there, and wrought a miracle by 
heahng a cripple, impotent in his feet, who had been 
Jame from from his mother's womb, by faying only 
to him. Stand upright on thy feet. The people pre- 
fent at this great miracle, and who came to hear the 
preaching of Barnabas^ were llruck with fuch admi- 
ration at what was done, that freight they bcliev'd 
thefe Strangers were Gods in human likenefs, and 
the itupid and ti^x^^xt^Xq Lycaonians cry'd out with a 
loud voice \ 'The Gods are come down to us in the like- 
nefs of men. But we can't fufpe6t Jofephus of fo ex- 
travagant a thought upon the fubjedt oi Jefus Chrifl^ 
for his u(ing the words, if yet ive 'may call him a man^ 
when he give an account of his wifdom and miracles. 
Nothing had been moreabfurd and fenfelcfs in the i- 
magination and mouth of a^^zc;, who knew that no- 
thing was anciently more common in his nation,than to 
fee there infpir'd men, who wrought miracles. Mofes 
their Lawgiver had made himfelf famous principally 
by that means > and after M^/^-j, how many other 
extraordinary men had there been in Ifrael^cni from 
God, who had lignaliz'd their miniltry by the won- 
ders they had openly fhewn.^ Since then the expref- 
iion of Jtjfephus,^ if yet we may call him a man^ was 
deriv'd from the miracles w^hich Jefus wrought, I 
can't fee whence 'tis poilible to imagine he meant to 
fay by thefe words, that Jefus was God. But to 
purfue the examination of his teftimony. 

He was a teacher of the truth to fuch perfons as 
would readily embrace it. The v/ord truth appears 
here too exprefs for the mouth of a man, who was 
no Chrifhian, becaufe we comprehend under it the 
whole doctrine of the Gopfelj but how could a Jew^ 
who never embraced it, defcribe it by thefacred name 
of truth? This argument might be good, \i Jofephus 

H 2, had 



(y^ 



had us'd the word in the full fenfe the argument takes 
it in, but Jofephus had another meanings his expref- 
fion is more general, and does not refped the Gofpel 
asoppos'dto the J^f-ze;//^ Religion, which this argu- 
ment takes for granted. The Greek fays, he taught 
thofe who were ready to embrace true things^ rdM- 
^^. But for this we need only fee in St. Matthew 
what were the fermons which Jefus Chrift made to 
the multitude of people, who flock'd to hear him, 
and wc fhall find nothing there which Jofephus might 
not well comprehend under the general name of true 
things : We have faid enough upon this head. Let 
us now come to what follows. He drew after him 
multitudes both of]ews and Gentiles. 

As to the Jews who were followers o^ Jefus Chrift^ 
tis certain they were very numerous: as we find in 
the hiftory of the Gofpel: But for the Gentiles^ we 
can't perhaps find there {\x in all, who embrac'd his 
dodrine, and were converted. St. Paul has obferv'd 
of Jefus Chrifty ^ that he was a mini ft er of the circumci- 
fion^ that is, he preach 'd only to the Jews: and he 
himfelf had faid to a Canaanitifh woman who en- 
treated him to heal her daughter, ^ I am not 
fent hut to the lofl fheep of the Houfe of Ifrael. The 
Gentiles receiv'd not the Gofpel, 'till it had been 
preach 'd to them, and it was not preach'd to them> 
'till feveral years after Jefus Chrifi had afcend- 
ed into heaven > from thence he drew them after 
him by the preaching of his Apoftles, and the vi6lo- 
rious grace of his Spirit, purfuant to what he had 
foretold in St. 7^^?;^, chapter 12. ^ fFhen I fhall ha've 
been lifted up from the earthy I will draw all men unto 
we: all men indifferently. Gentiles as well as Jews, 
Thefe things are fo well known to every one, who 
has read the New Telbment, that 'tis fcarce poffiblc 
to believe a Chrillian could have been fo far miftaken 



Rom. 15.8. J' Matt. 15. 14. ' V. S^^- 

as 



(53 ) 

as to fay that Jefus Chrifl drew after him multitudes 
of Gentiles as well as Jews. If then we confider well 
thefe words of the pafllige in difpute, we fhall find it 
could not be a Chriftian, as they would fancv, who 
forg'd this paflage: he who composed it, mull have 
been one of thofe ignorant men, who were very 
little acquainted with that Religion j for whoever 
knows any thing of it beyond the mere rudiments of 
the Faith, cannot but know, that nothing is literally 
lefs true, than what is faid in this teilimony, that 
our Saviour preaching the truth drew after him miiJ- 
titudes not of Jews only, but of Gentiles alfo. lit 
muft have been a ftranger to the Chriftian Religion, 
one who had never read what the Evangelids have 
written, who could fall intofuch a miftake; And in 
this ftranger we difcover the Jezvifo Hiftorian. From 
his time the Chriflian Church had been equally com- 
posed both of Jews and Gentiles j Jud^a was full of 
the one 3 and all parts of the Empire of the other. 
There was fcarce a town, how inconfiderable foever, 
among the Greeks and Latins^ wherein there were not 
both Jews and Gentiles converted to Chriftianity. 
Jofephus who obferv'd both the one and the other 
to follow the fame dodrine, and acknowledge the 
fame Jefus for their Lord and Chrifl^ troubled not 
himfelf fcrupuloufly to enquire into the exad time 
they had begun to do fo> he anticipates the conver- 
fion of the &;^//7^j feveral years, and confounds it with 
the converfion of the Jews : But what is there that's 
ftrange in all this, efpecially in fo fhort an account 
as that of this teftimony, where every thing is cur- 
forily exprefs'd? What follows is worthy our utmoft 
attention, and deferves a chapter apart. 



^ 



AP. 



( 54) 



Chap. IX. 

Toe exaU and particular examtnatton of 
the teftimony of Jofephus continued. 

IF what we have already feen of this teftimony 
has appear'd to thofe who rufpe6t it of forgery too 
loity and confiderable to have come from the pen of 
a Jeiv^ what follows is infinitely more fo. Hither- 
to we have had no expreflion, w^hich has not been 
fomewhat uncertain, and which we may not accom- 
modate to the charader of the Hiftorianj but what 
iTiall we fay to the reft of his teftimony? We there 
find chcfc words 3 He was theChrift. The impoftor, 
fay they, who bei^^ore had fhewn himfelf but by halves, 
here makes an open difcovery j he is then no more 
^Jew^ not a moderate and impartial /V-te;, who wrote 
the paftage, but a Chriftian, and a Chriftian fo tran- 
iported by his zeal , that he loft all condud in the choice 
of his exprcftions j he plainly declares, that Jefus 
was the Chyifi^ and that when the chief of the Jews^ 
jealous of then' own glory, had caufed him to be 
condemn'd and crucify'd, he was feen three days af- 
ter alive as before. 

We fhould have reafon to (ay, the impoftor who 
had forg'd this teftimony for Jofephus would have 
betray'd himfelf by making that Jew fay fuch things 
as were foreign to his profeftion, were it true that 
an iinpoitor was Author of the pafTage. But is it 
likely this pretended impoftor, this counterfeit, up- 
on whom we would throw it, iliould have fo far for- 
got himfelf as not to have feen, that by attempting 
ra fay, all he went about to deftroy all, that exprcfti- 
ons 



( 5J) 

ons fo ill chofen and decifive would fcive only to 
raifc llifpicions that Jofephns was not the pcrfon who 
had wrote the teitimony, the forgery whereof would 
be fo evident, that every body mull ftand amaz'd at 
it. 'Tis aduredly incredible, that any man who had 
taken it into his head to put out a tcltimony under 
the name of the Je\viJJj Hillorian in honour o^ Jefus 
Chrifi^ could have had fo little underftanding, as to 
lay himf-lf open to the difcovery of the whole world. 
But let us pafs by this, and fuppofe the man had nei- 
ther wit nor fenfe in the leaft to difguifc his forgery. 
The great men who have made ufe of this telbmo- 
ny, thofe menof fuperior Genius, Eufebius^ Sl.Jercm^ 
St. Ifidore^ would they have been fo heedlefs as to 
embrace fo flagrant an impofture? A coyner of falfe 
money would be but a bad contriver, who could 
not in the lead counterfeit the genuine ftampj and 
they truly would have but little wit who lliould fuf- 
fer themfelves to be impos'd on by it, and put it oiF 
as good and current coin. The application forms 
it felf j theimpoltor i'?^ the falfe coyner, and the others 
are thofe who put off his bad money. 

But could it then be poffible for Jofephns to have 
fiid that Jefus was the Chrijl^ the Melliah foretold 
by the Prophets, and yet notwithftanding this con- 
feflion continue in hx^Judaifm^ and not embrace the 
Chriilian Religion? h\\\ !e Nain de Tille?nont has 
very judiciouily anfwer'd this objection in his Hillo- 
ry of the Emperors : ^ Tis the love of truth ^ fays he, 
that makes men Chrifliayn^ not the bare knowledge of 
it : ne wind bloweth where it lifleth^ and men know 
not^ why it happens to touch one perfon^ or why it leaves 

another The f uth had reached the under ft anding but 

not the heart of J )fc'phus, overfwafd perhaps by the 
vain lujtre of hn fife learnings and the wretched va^ 
nity of paffing fur the chief man of his own Nation. 



Turn. I, part. 2, pag, 1015, 



( jO 

All this is very agreeable to Chriftianity, but Mr. fil- 
lemont has not in my opinion enough fludied the 
genius and chara6ter of Jofephus^ to fpeak of him as 
he has done, and to believe as he fays, that the Hi- 
ftorian, tho' a man of learning and abilities, was fo 
far convinced as to own Jefus was the Mefliah > he 
was not arrived to that pitch of knowledge, nor any 
more a Chriftian in underftanding than in heart. 
Yet has he fpoke concerning our Saviour as a Chri- 
ftian might have talk'd of him. 

Thefe firft words, as coming from a Jew^ he was 
the Chrili^ have occafion'd the furprize and aftonilh- 
ment of Chriftians. We have feen how St. Jerom 
alleviated the matter by the word credehatur^ it was 
believ'd^ that he was the Chrift^ divers "learned men 
have efpous'd his thought, and urg'd for it feveml 
reafons. Others unfatisfy'd with that anfwer have 
found out a new method of refolving the difficulty : 
They have for this had recourfe to a conjefturc 
which Criticks have fometimes em ploy 'd fuccefsfully 
enough, to wit, ^that it was firft a marginal note, 
wrote by fome body in Jofephus^ which afterward 
pafs'd from the margin into the Text , thro' the 
imprudence of tranfcribers. 

We muft own, this cafe has fometimes happen'd, 
but then the note transfefd into the Body of the 
Text is found only in fome MSS. copied after this 
former, or which have been made from others of 
the fame fort. But as it was impoflible at firft, 
that a note wrote by a private perfon in his own Copy 
could be alfo in the Copies of others, which were 
very numerous, and in divers places, it has always 
fell out for this reafon, that in procefs of time the 
MSS. of the fame Book in different places have not 
agreed j fome having the additional note in the Text, 

n Ulher, Ifaac Voffius, Mr. Huct, Pagi, and others. 
o Montacut. in notis ad Eufeb. Demonfir. Stfiph, le Moinc in 
mji$ ad fif^^oL Ittig, Pr&lf^^ in ^offj^hHrn^ Sec, 

and 



(57) 

and others the Text alone without that addition. 
This is all evident of it felf, and naturally it cannot 
be otherwife. But here all the MSS. of the Book 
of the JewijJo Antiquities, in all times and all coun- 
tries whatfoever, have thefe words without any va- 
riation. The Ancients, whom I have fo oft quoted 
in this tra<5b have all related this tellimony in the 
fame manner. It is not then pofTible to believe this 
was originally a margmal note : It has ahvays been 
the very Text of the Hillorian. 

Spencer has given in to another opinion : I have 
not feen his Book, but Mr. Simon has reported it 
in the z^^ Letter of the 2^ Tome of his Critical 
Bibliotheque. Spencer has fuppos'd a fort of Meffiah^ 
who was not altogether the fame with him the Jews 
expc^ed^ that was to reign over all the World. I know 
very little concerning this opinion^ N\\\ Simon xq- 
je6ls it as being only^ fays he, a conje^ure without 
much grounds : 1 think it yet lefs than that, nor do I 
fee how it can be apply'd to the paHage o^ Jofephus. 

All thefe applications of the fcope and ftnfe of 
thefe words, He was the Chrift^ are forc'd conllru- 
(5lions invented merely to elude the difficulty 3 but 
tho' all were received, the difficulty would Itill re- 
main, for were thefe words not in the teflimony un- 
der examination, yet the words following would be 
equally perplexing, that Jcfus^ after he had been 
crucify 'd by the command of Pilate^ was raifcd a- 
gain on the third day, and that all thefe with many 
other very wonderful things had been foretold by 
the Prophets. This addition binds dofe the knot, 
which the foregoing fcntence had only form'd, and 
thus 'tis a Vain attempt to untye it by any of the me- 
thods before prefcrib'd, we mull cut it, and yet this 
we cannot do, if v/e leave the laft words of the te- 
flimony in their full force. 

I A aiP- 



( 58 ) 

A modern writer, p \vho in all likelihood faw thefe 
difficulties, and notwithftanding is of opinion the 
paflhgc really belong'd to Jofephus^ has imagin'd the 
Jewijl) Hi dorian, far from intending there to do ho- 
nour to jcftis Cbrift^ had a quite oppofite defign. 
For this purpofe, he has ftrangely ftudied to turn all 
the periods of this teilimony to a bad fenfe 5 he has 
excrcis'd his imagination in feeking for every one fuch 
extravagant explications, that we maybe well afllir'd, 
Jofcphus would be found there a llranger to himfelf, 
fii.ce there is not one expofition, that his words give 
the Icaft hint of: So that 1 know no perfon who has 
follow'd this author thro' his indirect by-ways : He 
has been left to w^ander there alone very peaceably. 

Mr. Daubuz has thought of another expedient to 
extricate himfelf out of the affair. Perfuaded, as 
we are, that this teftimony is Jofephus's^ and fenfible 
of the difficulties we have kid open, he has dwelt 
much upon what Jofephus writes in his Preface to 
the Book of Antiquities, *^ that he compos'd that work 
in favour of fuch as were Lovers of HiHory, and 
efpecially that he might oblige Epaphrodttus^ a man 
of extraordinary worth, and who after having flood 
feveral fhocks of fortune had executed divers eminent 
Commiffions. 

The learned Englijhman conceived this was enough 
to ground his conje6tures upon, and form a new plan 
of the defign Jojephus might have had in this telli- 
mony. Nero had about his perfon a flave he had fee 
free, nam'd EpaphrodituSy whom he highly valu'd. 
Mr. Daubuz thinks him the fame man Jofephus here 
fpeaks of. He imagines this Epaphroditus had withal 
much credit in the court of Fefpaftan and his fons 
Titus and Domitian\ that he was a Chriftian, and 
that \\. would be to oblige him in the highell degree 

p ^smbecus in Biblioth. Vindebonenfi, Tom. 8. 
'i Aatiq. Praefat. 

to 



(59) 

to inferc into the Hiftory of the Jews an honoura- 
ble teftimony of Jefus Chrift. Jofephus had very 
particular motives of elleem and rerpe(5l for Epaphro- 
ditus^ whofe friendihip and prote6tioii might Hand 
him in much Head by keeping him in the good gra- 
ces of the Emperor, againll the dangerous inlinuati- 
ons of his enemies. In order then to procure fo con- 
fiderable a protector as Epapbroditus^ Jofephus^ who 
wrote the hiftory of the Jews^ laid hold of the op- 
portunity of thruiting in there a tellimony to the ad- 
vantage of our Saviour. 

This opinion, which is grounded wholly on the 
refemblance the name of the Epaphroditus Jofephus 
mentions in his preface bears with him who was fee 
free by the Emperor Nero^ has need of fo many con- 
jcftures, not one of which is certain, nor indeed very 
probable, that wecan'tacquiefceinitj audit hasbeen 
oppos'd in an anonymous Tra6l equally polite and learn- 
ed, which was fent from France to Mr. le Clerc^ who has 
^ inferted it into his ancient and modern Bibliotheque, 
fo that 'tis unneceflary to fiiy more concerning it. 

We fee by all that I have related of the different 
fentimcnts in explaining this pafn\ge, and the views 
Jofephus might have had to fpeak of Jefns Chrift in 
terms fo advantagious as thofe of this telhmony, how 
no pains has been i'par'd either to accommodate it to 
the charader of the Hiilorian, or to penetrate into 
the fecret fprings, which might have led him to 
exprefs himfclf m this manner. If I thought I could 
not bring better reafons than what have hitherto ap- 
penr'd, I would here end my Diflertation. My de- 
iigii was to prove Jofephus the Author of this telH- 
mony, and nothing is wanting to the proofs I have 
produc'd. If we had no MSS. of Jofephus^ and his 
Book of Jewiflo Antiquities was entirely loll, like 
abundance of others, which, as I may fay, but a lit- 



"^ Tom. 7. for the year 17 17. part. 2, 

I i tic 



( 6o 



tic ^hile fufviv'd their Authors, the citations of a 
paflage made by divers learned men, who all fay they 
read it in the Book itfelf, which in their days was 
yet extant, thefe would be to us inflead of the Book, 
which now we fhould have no more. Indeed, when 
we fee clearly that quotations follow fucceffively one 
after another from one age to another, from that 
to a third, and fo on, we may imagine, if wc have 
otherwife convincing arguments againft the genuine- 
nefs of the paflage, that they amount all but to one 5 
like the founds of an echo, which repeat the fame 
words divers times over, that the firfl has form'd. 
But when on the other hand it appears, as clear as 
the day, that all thefe ancient writers have not co- 
pied one after another, and that they all fpeak of the 
paflage they quote, as having all read it in the Book 
of the Author, under whofe name they produce it, 
he mufl: in my opinion be very obftinate, who refu- 
fes to afl[t nt to its being genuine. Take away from 
the incredulity this fupport, that all the quotations^ 
of the difputed teftimony are only a repetition of the 
citation Eufebius firfl: made, and you take away all : 
the charm is broken : And have I not fhewn this 
irom incontefliable evidence? Befides the Book of 
Antiquities is not one of thofe, which time has fwept 
av/ay, and whereof we have no remains, but fome. 
few paflages cited by the ancients in their writings j 
it IS come down to our own time, and with it the 
tellimony in honour of Jefus Chrift has pafs'd frorrju 
one age to another, in quotations. Now what bu-r 
iinefs have we after this to ftep from the Book to 
the Author, and enquire into his genius, whether 
this teftimony was agreeable to his fentiments, whe^ 
ther his words and opinion were the fame, whether 
'twould not have been the height of indifcretion and 
imprudence to have fpoke as he has done, whether 
lie iaw not that he fliould hereby itir up againfl: hini 
his ov/n countreymen, among whom he had already 

too 



(61) 

too many enemies, and that he ran an extreme rifque 
of lofing himfelf with Domltian^ whom fuch a tefli- 
mony could not but difpleafe for many reafons eafy 
to be feen? All this comes at laft to nothing, the 
fad remains (lilh we ought to refer the matter to 
proofs, and abide there. 

But if we muft yet, to fet the bufinefsin a clearer 
light and difljpatc the fmall cloud which the perfonal 
quality of Jofephus forms around it, approach fome- 
what nearer, handle thefubjeit, and found it, I think 
the thing very poflible, I would fiiy too, very eafy 
but that I fear to be in fome fort injurious to all 
thofe learned men, who have attempted to lay open 
the inward fentiments of Jofephus^ and have fallen 
from their purpofe. The eafinefs of the affair con- 
fifts in following him thro' all he has faid of himfelf 
and in drawing thence juft confequences, which be- 
ing Gompar'd with the teltimony in difpute will dif- 
cover to us the Author's defign in it. 

Chap. X. 

^n enquiry into the politicks and ambiti- 
on <?/ Jofephus, and how his tefiimony 
concerning Jefus Chrift, was owing to 
both thefe. 

IF we may judge of a man's heart and inv/ard fen- 
timents from his outward perfonal qualifications, 
there are few men we can pafs a better judgment 
upon^ than Jofephus. He was born a Jew^ and 
fprung from one of the moft confiderable families 
in his own nation, for in him were united together 

in 



(6i) 

in one blood the faccrdotal and regal dignity. ^ By 
his father's fide, Jofephus was of the linage of the 
Priefts, and of the firft rank too : By his mother, he 
defcended from the Afmonceans^ who for a long time 
had fway'd the fcepter in Ifrael. His education an- 
fwer'd to his birth, nothing that was requifite had 
been omitted 5 and the brightnefs of his parts, and 
greatnefs of his genius had ihewn themfelves with di- 
flindion in his early years. Among thefe excellent 
endowments which rendered him capable of all Sci- 
ences he difcover'd an extraordinary piety > and the 
choice he made of the fed of the Pharifees^ in his 
time the mofl elteem'd of all, was a mark of his zeal 
for his Religion. 

He was no lefj^ fit for arms than letters, and when the 
misfortune of the times required the jews to defend 
their liberties and their laws againfltheic'o;^/^;?!, who 
had bore down both, Jofephus fignaliz'd himfelf in 
that war upon divers occafions for the defence of 
his countrey. 

Hitherto we have feen nothing in him, which does 
not give us an high ideaj birth, abilities, learning, 
zeal, valour, were all difplay'd in his perfon 5 but 
under thefe fo fpecious appearances lay conceaPd the 
feeds of irreligion, which waited but for a favoura- 
ble opportunity to fhew themfelves. In all probabi- 
lity himfelf for a long time was ignorant of 'emj an 
exceflive felf-love, from whence they were derived, 
hid and cherilli'd 'em 5 'till time drew 'em out from 
thofe fecret recefies, where they had been fl^ut up, 
and laid them open to the view of the world. 

When he fet himfelf to write this great and labo- 
rious Work of the Jewijh Antiquities, which begins 
with Mofes at the creation of the World, and ends 
at the ij-'^^ year of the reign of iVVrtf, he promis'd 
with all exadnefs and fidelity to follow the facred 



Jofeph. Vit. ad princip. 

BooIi% 



(^3 ) 

Books, and to write nothing concerning his nation, 
which was not taken from Holy Scripture. He 
makes withal the fame proteftation at a time he was 
far advanced in this Work j For ?}iy oivn part^ ^fays 
he, who bai'e the honour to derive my extraclion from 
the Royal Blood of the Afmonxans, a72d the Dignity 
Jikewife of the Pontificate^ as I would not blaji the re- 
putation of my character with one falfe word^ I report 
matters as I find 'em. Nothing is more exprefs than 
this declaration-, the dignity of the Prieflhood, and 
in fome refpedt: of the Royal Blood too, are here en- 
gag'd. And yet, how oFt has he fail'd of that exa(5b 
fidelity, which was due to the facred Scriptures? V^^z 
can't fay, he eir'd thro' ignorance of what was con- 
tain'd in 'em, no, he had 'em before his eyes 5 but 
his heart being drawn away by vanity and an ambiti- 
ous deiire of making his Hillory agreeable to llrangers, 
frequently put him upon difguifing the truth, when 
that truth would have loll the air of probability with 
his Readers: 1 fhall give but a few examples. 

In the 2.^ Book of his Antiquities " he gives an account 
of the paflage of the Israelites through the Red fea^ 
and clofes his recital with this proteltation: 1 have 
been the more particular in thefe relations^ becaufe 1 find 
'em in Holy JVrit 5 and yet he has there added divers 
things of his own head, of which the Holy Scriptures 
fay not one word. Such is the long difcourfe he puts 
into the mouth o^ Mofes to repreis the «nurmurs of 
the people^ Mofes's long prayer > the tempell of rain^ 
and lightnmg, and thunder, which* augmented the 
horror of the pitchy night that overtook the Egypti- 
ans -^ the falfe praife he of his own accord bellows 
upon the Ilebrezvs^ for whom the fca opcn'd [hat 
happy paflage, that they were men who livd in in- 
nocence':, but what is worfc than all this, he has exte- 
nuated the glory of the miracle, by leaving it unde- 



Antiq. Jud. lib. 16. cap. n. » Cap.-i^. 16. 

cidcd. 



cided, whether it was properly the work of Godj 
or the ordinary courfe of trnTurej whether^ fays he, 
the fea opeu'd of it felf^ or this fell out by the will of 
God. 

And to give the finiiliing ftroke to his impiety, 
he requires we fliould compare this miracle with the 
fable of the Greeks^ who faid that the fame thing hap-- 
pen'd to the Macedonians, when they pafs'd thro' the 
Sea of Pamphylia, under the conduct of Alexander. 
Here was a worthy Attendant upon the facred Altars, 
who thus prophanes the Holy Scriptures to acommo- 
date 'em to his own intentions ! But he did not flop 
there. 

Another inftance we have in the manner of his re- 
lating the ftory o^ Jonas. All the world has read in 
the Book of that Prophet the miracle of the fiih, 
who fwallowed him up when he was thrown into the 
fea, and after three days caft him up again fafe and 
found on the fhore. Jofephus durft not affert upon 
the authority of the Holy Scriptures, that the matter 
wasfoi but for fear the Greeks^ upon whofe account 
principally he fomewhere fays he wrote his Jewifh 
Antiquities, Ihould treat the Hiftory of this great e- 
vent as fable, he contents himfelf with reporting it un- 
der the privilege of a bare V/j faid^ Koyag. Is it pof- 
lible for a Jew^ a Prieil, to keep up lefs clofe to his 
chara6ler, or more bafely to fhuffle in relations, 
which demand the utmoft fidelity and fincerity? 
Let us follow him, and we fhall yet fee him more 
Shamefully betray the truth, and droll upon Re- 
ligion. 

He had been taken prifoner by the Romans at the 
(lege of Jotapata^ a fortrefs, where himfelf com- 
manded. Vefpafian^ the Emperor's General laid 
(lege to that place: Jofephus was brought before 
him, and the fear of being fent to Rome^ and given 
up to Nero^ who was dreaded for his cruelties by 
the whole world, put him upon a fingular ftratagem 

to 



ro obtain of Fefpafian'^ that he might tarry vvlth 
him as his prifoncr^ this was to let up for a Prophet. 
He fays he was a Mejfengcr Jcnt by God to tell him he 
lliould one day be Emperor, and after him his Ion 
Titus^ who was there prcfcnc. He thus gives the re- 
lation himfeif in the 3^^ Book of his Wars of the 
Jevjs. '' Fefpaftdn order'd me to be kept in fafe 
'' cudody^ bccaufe he intended to fend me to Nero^ 
'' but having intimated, that I had fomething to fay 
" to him in private, he gave me audience in the pre- 
" fence of Tittis^ and two of his friends raid 1 de- 
'' liver'd my felf in terms to this efTc6L; Your pre- 
^^ fent thought, Sir, without doubt is that you have 
'^ only in vour hands Jofephus a prifoner, but 3i i!tn 
" a ^effengei: fent Qf ©Oa about a matter that 
'' much more concerns you. You would fend me 
" to Nero^ and why am 1 to be fent thither, when 
*^ he and his fucceObrs down unto you have fo fhort 
^^ a time to live? 'Tis you only I muil look upon as 
^' the Emperor, and t'ltus your fon after yciu, for 
" both of you fhall fit upon the Throne. 

What fliifts has not the love of life in the mind of 
a prophane -.iid worldly man, who makes religion 
truckle to his interelh ! This unv.-orthy perfon went 
about to proilitute tlie name of God to the ambitioni 
o^-Fefpafian^ aud following the manner and expref- 
fions of the true prophets, he had the boldncfs to af- 
fert be came a Mcjfenger fro?n G^r/ with thefc predi£ti- 
ons to Vefpafian^ when the whole of the matter was 
only a turn of flattery invented by this impoftor to 
fave his life. He impofes withal upon the publick^in 
his account-, the particular circumftanccs that after 
NcYo there fhould be Emperors whole reign would 
be very fhorr, and that giving place one to another 
by quick fuccellions they Ihould leave the tlirone va- 
cant to Vefpafian^ who lliould afcend it after them,- 
are but an embelliflimcnt added by Jofephus to the 
difcourfe, he made the General. 'Whcn he wrotd 

K hi^ 



( 66 ) 

Ills Books of the Ifars of the Jews Vefpafian was al- 
ready poflefs'd of the Kingdom, and fo the pretended 
Prophet had then feen the Revolutions which fell 
out in the Empire. 

At that time Nero died, Galhct was made Empe- 
ror in his ftead, but reign'd feven months only > aftei' 
him Otho afcended the Imperial Throne, but fate not 
long there, for he reign'd but three months > Viteh 
lius fucceeded him, and reign'd eight months. Af- 
ter all thefe fudden turns of afFairs, Vefpafian Avas e- 
leded Emperor, his birth gave him no title, but his 
merit procur'd his advancement,. 

'Twas eafy for Jojephus in the account of his pre- 
tended prophecy to infinuate, that he had (q^ii all 
thefe things before they fell out, but herein he only 
cloak'd one impoflure by another. He pretends to 
foretell things to come, and grounds his predi61:ions 
upon conje6lure. A man who knew the world fo well 
as he did, and was mafter of fo much ingenuity and 
policy might foretell without a miracle that Vefpafian 
W'ouid one day be Emperor. The Empire was wearied 
with the burthen of Nero'% villanies and cruelty, info- 
much that he kill'd himfelf for fear of b'^ing murder'd by 
another hand. There were fome men in the Empire 
indeed, who might lay claim to the fucceffion ^ Vef- 
pafian had not the fame right: but after all what ha- 
zard did Jofephus his prifoner run, by fo flattering a 
predi61:ion? The worft: that conld happen to him 
was either to be expos'd to publick fcdffe, to be pu- 
nifh'd for abufing the Roman General 5 or, what he 
apprehended moll, to be fent to Nero-y whereas if it 
barely fell out, that Nero fhould dye, ov be kill'd, zdr 
his crimes made it reafonable enough to imagine, he 
would then be ever look'd on with a favourable eye an 
the Court of Vefpafian^ by reafon of that firfl glim- 
n,iering, which had flattcr'd his hopes, and anima- 
ted his nHibitioDo 

* The 



( ^7 ) 

The whole of the matter is, Jofephus made ufe 
of this artifice to prevent his being carried to Rome. 
Suetonius mentions his prcdiftion in thefe terms j 
"^Whcn Vefpafian ivas in Judxa, there was one of the 
moft eminent captives^ nani'd Jofephus, *ivho the mo- 
ment he IV IS feiz'd on^ declared he fijonld he fet at U- 
herty hy Vefpafian, who would become Emperor. The 
diviner's prediction went no farther; but the events 
preceded the prophecy, as I've above obferv'd. 

This firfl: elTiiy had fucceeded too well for the pre- 
tended Prophet to Hop there. Being wholly intent 
upon what might gain him ftill more and more the 
favour of Vefpafian and his fon, he with the fame 
dexterity laid hold upon the following occaiion, 
which was very proper to compafs his ends. 

There had been a current report in the world for 
Tome time, that the Jews^ who were fubjc6i:ed to the 
Romans^ fhould retrieve their loft cftate, and extend 
their vidlories to foreign nations : // was held^ ^ fays 
Suetonius^ throughout all the Eafi^ that the Fates had 
then promis''d^ i. e. in the time o{ Fefpafian^ the govern- 
ment of the world fjjould be given to men who came out 
from Judx^. Tacitus relates the fame thing in thefe 
terms > ^^ There was among them^ he fpcaks of the 
"Jezvsj an opinion^ [aid to have been taken from the an- 
cient Books of their Priefls^ that at that time the Eaji 
fjjould be uppermofi^ and that from Juda:a would come 
forth men^ who fhould make themfelves mafters of the 
world. 

It is not difficult to fee what might have given 
place to this opinion of the Jews.^ and the reports 
that had gone abroad. The Prophets had foretold 
the coming of the Mefliah, they had fpecify'd the 
rime, and this was the time, when the Scepter be- 
ing departed from Judah^ the Meiliah defcended of 
the Royal Family of Davidy fhould be eftablilh'd on 

^ Suet. Vic. Vefpaf. cap. ■?. ^ cap. 14. 
':' Taat. Hift cap. 5. 

d;e 



Mie throne. The fecond Pfalm had foretold his tri- 
umphs over his enemies even in the remotefr corner? 
of the earth 5 j^sk of me^ fays the Ahiiighty, and I 
.will give theethie heathen for thine inheritance^ and the 
tittermoft parts of the ear tip for thy pofjefjion. The grofs 
and carnal Jews kept clofe to the letter and explai n'd 
this prophecy, as all the world knows, in an earthly 
fenfe of a kingdom in this world, and their defire 
of being freed from the bondage they laboured un- 
der turn'd their minds wholly upon fuch flattering i- 
deas. ■ ^acitus^ and with reaibn, treated thefe hopes 
of the Jews as illufion and chimiera^ he culls thefe 
predi6l:ions by the Latin word ambages^ as who 
ihould fay, ihey wxre predictions fii only to perplex 
men's minds, and lead 'em into a fnare j after that 
explaining 'em in his own way, and as a Pagan might 
doj This^ f\ys he, was underficod of Thus and Y q{^" 
pafian^ but the people^ who eafily believe what tjaey 
deftre^ interpreted thefe oracles to their own advantage^ 
without being better informed from their misfortunes. 

This application of the Holy Oracles coming from 
a Pagan who might know nothing of 'em but from 
confus'd reports, is in no wife furprizingj but \s it 
credible he iliould be fupply'd with it from the Jezv 
ijh Hiilorian, and almoit: in the fame words. Taci- 
tus WTote divers years after him, and efpeciajly after 
the publieacion of his Hiflory of the Wars of the 
Jews^ which was compil'd m the reign of f^efpaftan 
and Titus^ and in a npanner under the eyes of them 
both. Tacitus could not fail to have vead that Work 
which was fo much approv'd, as I have already ob- 
ferv'd after St. feroniy that it was ordef d to be kept 
\Xi the Library at Rorae^ and in recompence a ftatue 
was erected to fofephus. But it is in his ^ liillory 
of the Wars of the Jevjs we had the words which 



^ Lib, 6. cap. 31. 

follow : 



(^9) 

follow : " After the taking of Antonia^ the "Jeia^ 
^' made the Temple fqiiarc, when they could not be 
^^ ignorant of a Prediction in Koly Writ, that Tern- 
" pie and City ilioiild be both taken, when that 
" happcn'd. But the chief motive to this unfortu- 
" nate War was the Ambiguity of another Text, im- 
" porting that in thofe days there fhould one come 
" out o\Judcea^ that Ihould have the command of 
'' the whole world. Now they apply M this to their 
*' own nation, and many great men fell into the fame 
'' error y for this prophecy was intended of Fcfpa^ 
^^ fian^ who was created Emperor '\\\^ud.V:i : But 
'' they interpreted thefe prediftions by their own 
'• fancy, and were not convinc'd of their uiiftake but 
" with the irreparable deibudlion of themfelves. 

I vvnll not here heighten the palpable millakes a- 
bout the fenfe of prophecies, which Jofephus has 
fallen into in thefe few words 5 there's not one through- 
out all the old Teftament that bears any relation to 
the taking o{ Antcnia-^ not one importing that in 
thofe days a man of their own nation, or as he un- 
derftands it, a ftranger who fhould be found in Ju^ 
d£a^ {hould go out thence to take upon him the 
command of the whole earth. Thefe were /1-rata- 
gems invented by Jofephus to carry on his defigns. 
But good God! Vv'hat defignsj why, to wreft the 
prophecies concerning tlie Meilrah, and turn 'em all 
upon Vefpaftan, And befides, how disdainfully does 
he mention thefe prophecies? He Itylcs 'cm by a 
name of contempt ambiguities^ anfv/ering to the La- 
tin word ambages^ the mark of fcorn let upon 'em 
by l^acitHs. And why fhould a Pagan {peak more re- 
fpeclfully of 'em than the 7^wi/7; Hiftori.m, that ve- 
ry Hiitorian Vv'ho in this Work declar'd he was an In- 
terpreter of the Law ? 

Was there ever feen a more extravagant inftance 
cf flattery, and more grievous profanation of Holy 
Writ than to expound of Vefpcifian the predidions 

concerning 



( 70 ) 

concerning the Meffiah ? No wonJer this wretched 
Corrupter of the facred Books after this drew upon 
him the hatred of his own nation, as we read in his 
Life, wrote by himfelfj he deferv'd to meet with 
the utmoll deteflation. 

Yet Vefpafian was not fo well fatisfy'd with the 
apph'cation of the prophecies Jofephus had made, but* 
that he fufpeded flattery had a part in the affair. He 
had opportunities enough, whilfl he was in Judaa^ 
of knowing that the Jews flill expeded their Mef- 
£ah, and plac'd all their hopes in his coming. This 
gave him no fmall diflurbance, and to free himfelf 
from the pain, as we learn ^romy Eufebius^ he caus'd 
an exa6t fearch to be made after the Pofterity of Da- 
wW, and put to death all he could find of that illu- 
ftrious Houfe. Whence all this fear and precaution 
in ^L Roman Emperor? but that the Prophets, whofe 
predictions had never fail'd, clearly foretold there 
fhould arife one of the family of Da^vid^ in whofe 
perfon thefe prophecies would all be fulfili'd, and 
who ihould reftore again the Kingdom to IfraeL 

After the death of Vefpafian^ and his Succeflbr 27- 
ius^ who reign'd two years only and fome months, 
Domitian came to the Throne. He was a Prince 
born with very bad inclinations j all Hiilorians have 
reprefented him as timorous, fufpicious, miilruilful 
to the lafl degree, and jealous upon every trifle. He 
found the Empire in fome fort fecur'd to his Family, 
\\\% father had been firll: in pofleflion 3 "Titus fucceeded 
him, and held it peaceably to his death j he next fol- 
low'd after I'itus his brother, but the dread of the 
predidions in the facred Books came frelh into his 
memor}^, as they had formerly done into /^t^^^/^;^'s. 
He faw no other remedy for thefe fears than what his 
father had made ufe of} to this purpofe, he diligently 
enquires v/hether any one furviv'd among the Jews^ 

y Eufeb. Hiii Ecclef. lib, 3. cap. 11. 

who 



(7i) 

who was dcfcendcd of the Royal Blood and Family 
ol David. The MefHah was to fpring from thence j 
and the Meffiah was the fource of the Emperor's fear. 
We learn from ^Hiflory, that fome few were found 
ther/£, who were alfo brouglit ht^oxo. Domitlan, He 
put divers quellions to 'em upon the flate of their fa- 
milies, to know if there were any amongll 'em of 
honourable note^ particularly he ask'd their opinion 
of the .Kingdom of the Mefliah. They anfwer'd 
they had neither riches, nor glory in their houfesj 
that their whole patrimony coniillcd of forty acres 
of land, which they till'd with their own hands, as 
might be {^<i\-\ from the marks they bore about 'em^ 
and which they fhew'd him. As to the kingdom of 
the Mcfliah, they told him, it was not to be a king- 
dom of this world, but a fpiritual kingdom. Eufe- 
blus^ from whom we have this Hiftory, took it from 
the Hiftorian Hegefippus^ who liv'd in the fame age 
with D omit i an. 

'Twas in the reign of the cruel Emperor, as we 
have frequently obferv'd, that Jofephus wrote his Hi- 
llory of ih^JewSy here a proper occafion prefented 
it felf to the Hiftorian to fpeak o^Jefus Cbrift^ with^ 
outany fufpicion that he was defirous of placing there 
fome few periods concerning him 5 on the other 
hand, there would have appear'd too fendble an af- 
fe6tation to lay nothing of him, had he pafs'd over 
in filence a facl: fo remarkable in it felf, and its con- 
fequences. Jofephus here aded the part of a fawn- 
ing Courtier and confummate Politician, he laid hold 
of this opportunity to difpell the vain fears 01 Donii- 
tian^ which the predidlions of the Prophets concern- 
ing the Mcfliah had occafion'd. What he had heard 
from the mouth of thofe Jews^ Eufchius fpeaks of 
from Hegcfippns^ might have a little caim'd his cares 5 
but fomewhat more was necelTary to remove 'em 



hufcb. Hill. Ecdcf. lib, 3. cap. i-;, RufHn.lib. 3. cap. 19. Czt-io. 

quite. 



( ;^0 

(^uite, fomewbat which fhould cut off tlicir fecret 
fprings. Jofephus was the only man living, who could dd 
this y he knew D omit ian's weaknefs to a tittle. Fears and 
apprehcnlions with eafe grow up again in a diihuft- 
fuU and fufpicious mind 3 the JewtjJ) Nation was 
not reduced lb low by Fefpafian and 'Tit 11 s^ but that 
iriany thoufand Jews were yet remaining in the Eaft^ 
^nd all other countries throughout the Empire 5 and 
there was ilill caufe to fear they would form fome 
inighty effort to re-ellablilli thcmfelves in Jiid^a,- 
What came to pafs divers years after under Trajari 
and Adrian is a convincing proof of this marter : they 
made feveral infurredions in the Empire, and refted 
not 'till thofe Emperors had obtain'd divers very 
bloody victories over 'em, and fo put 'em out of a 
condition to do mifchief. Fear augments the dan- 
ger, Domitian was confcious an infinite number of 
Jews were yet left behind, and that they were a 
warlike nation j but what gave him the mod uneafi- 
nefs was the predi6lions which foretold the coming 
of a Mefliah, upon whom they continually bent their 
eves, and founded the whole hope of their re-efta- 
blifliment. As oft as thefe prophecies prefented thcm- 
felves before Domitian^ (and how eafily was the fear 
of danger able to plant them there!) his mind was un- 
quiet and troubled. Thefe then were to be re- 
mov'd out of the way by falfe gloffes, and making 
him believe, they had refpedt to a.Meffiah very dif- 
ferent from him, whom the jews vainly look'd for. 
They imagin'd, he was not yet come j but alas ! they 
were all millaken, the Mejfiah had liv'd on earth 
fifty years before Domitian had come to the Crown 5 
this happen'd, when Pilate was Governor mjud^a. 
Who then was this Mefliah the Prophets had fore- 
told ? Why, it was Jefus^ a man of infinite wifdom 
and virtue, above all that was ever feen in one man. 
God, who had confer'd on him thele excellent en- 
do wments^ gave him alfo a po-wer to work many 

miracles 5 



( 73 ) 

miracles; he taught, he preach'd, and the tendency 
of his doftrinc was to make men wife and virtuous 
as himfelf. His fermons, fupportcd by his miracles, 
drew after him from all parts a vafl: concourfe of 
prople, and nil who were ready to embrace true do- 
dtrinc, and partake of fohd inl1:ru6lions, prtfs'd to 
hear 'em from his mouth : 'TV; hc^ who was the Chrifl. 

We now fee why Jofephus has fo plainly afferrcd 
that y'^i'us was the Chriji -, the whole of his defigii 
tu'n'd upon it, and if he had not been thus exprels 
in his declaration, all the reft would have been to no 
purpofe. Dumitian was afraid of a Chrifl^ a Mefllah, 
the Jews had one continually in their thoughts, up- 
on whofe coming they plac'd the whole of their 
happinefs. Another then was to be found for Do- 
mitian^ one who was already come, and of a diffe- 
rent chara61:er from him the Jews expedled 5 here 
then we have one, in the perfon of Jefus. And for 
a proof that Jofephus laid down fuch marks as Domi- 
tian might rclt upon, we need only fee with what 
addrefs the whole affair is carry'd on and manag'd. 
This Jefiis^ fays he, was a wife man, whofe whole 
bufinefs lay in preaching the dG61:rine of truth, he 
was one, who wrought miracles, fo that 'twas not 
enough to call him but a man. All thefe ideas, which 
the Hiftorian has fet in the front, w^ere but to pre- 
pare the way for this declaration, that was to give 
the finifhing ftroke, he was the Chrift. What fol- 
lows was added only to render the blow more fure, 
and make a deeper impreffion upon the mind of Do- 
77iitian, 

The Chief of our nation mov'd with envy accused him 
before Pilate, who caus'd him to be crucify'' d. For want 
of due infpeftion into the particular views of Jofe- 
phus^ he has been judg'd extremely imprudent thus 
to introduce the Chief of his own nation in this ac- 
count, and accufe 'em of havhig proceeded againft 
Jefus Chrifi out of fo unworthy a motive as that of 

L envy. 



( 74 ) 

envy. But here ky the artifice of Jofephus^ by in- 
ferring a truth fo well known to the publick as the 
follicitation and procurement of the death of Jefus 
Chrifi by the Chief of the Jews-j by means, I fay, 
of a truth, he might have conceal'd, he the more 
imperceptibly brought in all that he afterward faid 
concerning the things foretold by the Prophets. 
Truth intermix'd with falfhood inlinuates both the 
one and the other indiilmftly into the mind, efpeci- 
ally where inclination leads the way •, and inclination 
was not a little concern'd in this affair. 

As to the envy, which Jofephus fets down as the 
motive, that llir'd up the Chief of the Jews againfl 
Jefus Chrift ^ the Hillorian was very artful in his 
mention of it j not only becaufc the fad was true, 
and might be well known, but withal to obviate a 
perplexing objedion, which might arife in the mind 
oi DGmitian^ why if thisj^/^j', this C^r//?, was pof* 
fcfs'd offuch extraordinary endowments, he was per- 
fecuted by the mod eminent perfons in Jiidaa ? Be- 
caufe, fixys the Hi dorian, they were jealous of their 
own reputation 5 mere envy. By this means Jofe- 
phus vindicated the tellimony he gave to Jefus with- 
out which he could not well have pofitively alTert- 
ed, as he did, that he ijoas the Chrifi. 

Next after thefe artful and dexterous turns follows 
the tertimony that Jefus^ who had been crucify'd, 
was feen alive again within three days. This cir- 
cumliance has appear'd inconceivable to the oppo- 
fers of the pallage, who hold it to be none oijo* 
fephus's. For how, fay they, could a Jew give te- 
itimony to our Saviour's refurre6tion, upon which 
the whole Gofpel principally depends, as St. Paul 
has obferv'd at large m the if ^'\ chap, of his I^^ Epift. 
to the Corinthians ? This argument would Hand goodj 
li Jofephus had fpoken purfuant to the principles of 
his Judaifm, but that was the leait of his defign, as 
we have feen in what has been faid already. His 

aim 



(75 ) 

aim here was to find out in Je/us the characters of 
the Mefliah foretold by the Prophets, to fhew how 
it was poflible thole perfons, who followed him in his 
life-time fhould adhere to him alfo after his death, a 
death fo ignominious as the punifhment of the crofs : 
it was becaufe he rofe again. This confideration, 
which engagM heaven as a furety for the doctrine 
Jefns had preach'd, and for his character as the 
Mefliah, was a fufficient warrant for the zeal and fi- 
delity of his difciples in embracing and honouring 
him as they did. 

Farther, allthefeand many other wonderful things, 
adds the cunning Hiflorian, were foretold by the 
holy Prophets. There were indeed other predidi- 
ons, importing that out ofji/d^a fliould come a great 
Conqueror j but thcfe, kys Jo/epbHSj were intended 
of Fefpafiar?^ and fulfill'd in his perfon. And for 
the other prophecies, that did properly relate to the 
Mefliah of our nation, thefc, fays the fubtle counter- 
feit, were all verified in Jefus. He was a wife man, 
gave good infl:ruci:ions, work'd miracles. Was cruci- 
fy'd thro' envy, rofe again the third day, and left 
behind him a multitude of followers -, this waj ail 
the Prophets had foretold : And wherein did then* 
predictions injure the Emperor's fccurity ? The crafty 
politician leaves the inference to Domiticm^ who with- 
out perceivjng the artifice of his dcfign, opens his 
heart to thefe agreeable infinuations, there they fix 
their root, and he Itreight concludes he has nothing 
to fear from the pretended Mefliah, who was to 
come, the mere phantom of an abus'd imagination j 
nor yet from hmi who had been come above lixty 
years ago, whofc whole power confiflcd in making 
his name famous throughout the world, and in ga- 
thering after him a valt fc6l of people, who defir'd 
only to live according to their own laws, and had 
no defign to embroil the State. This calms Domi- 
tian's fears, and the predidions give him no longer 
difquiet. Such 



(76) 

S-ich \v!re vidbly the vie\v> of ch3 Hulorlan in 
the tellimiiiy he give to Jefus Cbrlji. He fpoke 
not of hi'ii iii ^^\c'n aivuicagbus terms with defign 
to do him honour, or to favour the Chriltian faith : 
And in all probability he would have pafs'd him over 
in tilence, or faid very little of him,^ if the imagi- 
nary fears, which firfl: took footing in the breall of 
Fejpajian^h'xdi not fome years after replaced themfelves 
in his fon Domit'wji's. But as ftrong paffions lay 
hold of every advantage > the immoderate ambition 
of Jofephtis to keep in that Emperor's favour by 
whom he was much elteem'd, as he had been before 
by Fefpafian and I'itus^ put him upon this ingv^nious 
firatagem to difpel the cares of the diflruftfui, un- 
eafy Domltian. This might have gone hard with 
the iincerity and confcience of any other man b:*{idcs 
Jofephus'y but for his part he did not trouble himlelf 
much about that matter. He had upon divers occ^- 
ilons cleared the way for profanation and impiery 5 
and when this road is once beaten, a man walks in 
it without pain, efpecially when led on by an ambi- 
lion, that has full pofleffion of his heart. 

FINIS. 



A Critical DiiTertation upon the 17^^ Verfe of the s*^^* Chap- 
ter of St. ^ohris firft Epiflle, There are three^ that bear record 
in Heaven, d<.c. wherein the Autheaiicknels of this Text is 
fully proved againft the Objedlions of Mr. Simon and the Mo- 
dern Ar'ians. Written originally in French by Mr. Martiny and 
now tranllated into Engllfh, 8vo. 17 19. 

Plain Notions of our Lord's Divinity. Set forth in a Ser- 
mon preached upon Chrifimas Day, at the Royal Chapel of 
Whitehall. Publidied at the Requeil: of many of the Audience, 
By Tho, Mangey, LL. D. Chaplain to the Right Reverend 
Father in God, Johny Lord Bilhop of London ; the z^ Edi- 
lion» 8vo. 1 7 19. 

Mr. Law'i Reply to the Bifliop of Bangor s Anfwer to the 
Reprefentaiion of the Committee of Convocation^ Humblj 
addrefs'd to his Lordd^ip. 8vo. 17 19. 



/06. 
A N 



ANSWER 



T O 



Mr. Martin's Critical Diflerta- 

tion on i John v. 7. Tl^ere are Three 
that bear ^cordy &c. 



SHEWING 



The Infufficiency of his <Proofs, and the 
Errors of his Suppfttioas ; by which he 
attempts to eftablifli the Authority of that 
Text from fuffofed Manufcripts, 



By THO. EMLTN. 






LONDON: 

Prwted by John Darby in Barthohmew-Clofe, and Sold 
by John Noon at the White Hart in Cheapfide near 
Mercer i Chappely and James ROBERTS in Warwick* 
Law. M.DCCXIX. 

Priced <^ 



SM *^m^S. 



Ill 



«^Q «^i§» «•*•$■•)&•«• ©sS^ •ij.^-^-iJ-*- 5^3% S i* 



THE 



PREFACE 





w. 


ffr] 


i 


W;'.Ms^:3m 



H/5 Gentleman^ whom I propofe to an^ 
fwerin the foUowwg Treatife, hds cer^ 
tainly fet off hvs Arguments withagr^ai 
deal of Addrefs and handfome Flourifh. 
I believe few cou'd have faid more upon 
the Point, tho perhaps fome wou'd have chofm to fay 
lefs. The ExtraO: of my Inquiry in the Hague- jour- 
nal feems to have given the Occafton of his DilTer* 
tation. I had traced the learned Dr. Mill, Jtisra ^oc/lit^, 
to whofe accurate Labours^ little that was new coud 
be added. What few Remarks I may have mnde^ 
to clear or (Irengthen fome Arguments^ Mr. Martin 
has not always taken notice of \ fo that I thought at 
firfl he had only feen the Extraf^, till I obferved he 
has cited the Pages which are ndf inferted in ths 
Journal. 

I commend his pious Zeal for the Credit of the 
Holy Scriptures, but do not think his Inference j«/?, 
viz. ihat^ if the Text in debate be found not genuine^ 
it is rational to fuppofe the fame thing may have 
happened to fome other Texts whereon the Faith 
has been founded. For if onr Faith be jujlly founded 



A 2 



upon 



iv The Preface. 

upon any Text, *ri$ kcaufe we have better proof of its 
Authority ^ and if we have not^ ^tis not Faith, hut 
Credulity, which is no Chriftian Virtue. And I he- 
lieve this Gentleman cannot give fuck another In^ 
fiance of one important Text rely'don^ which is not 
better proved than this h nor admits any one elfe^ nor 
yet the PalTage of Jofcphus it felf^ upon fuch lam^ 
Evidence, Nor can 1 think that Man a true Friend to 
the Honour of Chriftianity^ who declares it muji fland 
or fall with this, or {if there were any) other Texts 
in the fame Cafe. 

Since therefore he agrees to this, that we ought to 
re]e(^ this Paffage if 'tis not Scripture \ and /, 
that We ought to receive it^ if it be fo ^ we are not 
to fright our felves with Confequences^ to engage our 
Tajfions on one fide or on the other, but ferioujly, and 
in the Integrity of our Hearts, to inquire and exa- 
Uiine to the bottom, whether it he a part of Sacred 
Writ or not. Only I muft ohferve that ^twas not 
-fair tofay^ It turns only upon the Silence of fome 
antient Writers, and the Omifllons in fome Greek 
IVlanufcripts of St. J^o/jn'sEpiftle, and that nothing 
elfe can he urged'-, when we do urge the OmiJJion of 
aU the Greek Manufcripts, andearneflly defirehim 
to direCl us at leajl to one, before he bars us of this 
Plea, andalfo the OmilTion/w all the genuine antient 
Greek Writers^ as far as appears. And till this Exam 
mination be over^ and fuU Satisfaction given, he fhou^d 
not, I think, have called it one of the raoft excellent 
Paflages of the whole Scripture, lejl he happen to 
give the preference to a Dilate of fome ordinary and 
erroneous Man, 

I can't fay hut Mr, Martin has written with Be- 
cemy, and the Civility of a Gentleman ', but fuch 
Treatment muft not, it feems, be expe^ed from all^ 
For from the Pulpit, at a puhlick LeGure of Dif- 
fenters, / have been very lately attacked with heavy 
CcnfureSj and angry Reproaches, in order to vindicate 

thisL 



The Preface.^ 

this contefted Text.** It feemsthat Dr. G — --^ on 
the 1 3t/? Inftant, thought it the beft Method to begin 
mth Mens Charaders rather than mth their Argu- 
ments, and in effelf to teU his People^ that very good 
Men had been for the Text, and fame very bad or in^ 
different ones againfl it : And then he defaended to ?ar* 
ticulars -J viz. Mr. Le Clerc, Mr. Whifton, and hi 
Simon, as the Chief of the opfoftte Sidcy who for Piety 
and Learning were not to oompare with fame of the a- 
ther 'i tho they are well known to be Men of fuperior 
Abilities^ and /ingular Learnings of whom^ if on 
his Side^ perhaps he would have boafted with as great 
Glory. 

Astomyfelf^ I only complain^ that it was not very 
charitable in him to fay from the Pulpit^ That tho it's 
true the Text is noE in the Alexandrian and Vatican 
Copies, yet that I (under the Name of the- Author 
of the Inquiry^ had fuch an Averfion to that Doc- 
trine, that if the Text had been inthofe Copies, and 
twenty more (I think that was the Number) he 
believed I would cavil againft it ftill ^ and infinua^ 
ted to the People^ as if I had attempted to huff and 
beftor 'em oat of the Text. 

/ addreffed my Inquiry to my Superiors in Con- 
vocation i and if I did write in a huffing and hedo- 
ring manner^ IJhould be very forry, fmce I intended 
to do it with fair Arguments and decent Refpeii ; but 
1 muft leave this to equal Judges that have read my 
Book^ and let them pronounce whether my Book^ or fucti 
Preachings have more of the HufF and Hedor. 

''Twas hard he fhould he fa very uncharitably con* 
fident, what I wou'd have done^ and how I would 
have aEled againfl the greateft Evidence^ if there had 
been any in the Cafe, fm perfuaded he can^t fhew 
where ever I have caviTd againfl fuch Evidence as he 
mention''d, in any one Point of religious Difpute. I 
can tell of feveral Jnflances where I have yielded 
to Evidence againfl my former religious Opinions ^ and 

againfl 



•vl The Preface. 

again f^ my worldly Intereft and deputation too } nay^ 1 
once valued this fuppofed Text, as much as I can now 
any Proof of its being fpurious ; perhaps much more^ 
becaufe I found far more need then to have it for me^ 
than I do now to get clear of it ^ and yet when £- 
vidence did appear again^ ity I did not cavil. 

I appeal to any one of Vnderfianding^ whether John. 
10. 30. I and my Father are one, be not altogether 
as oppofite to the Opinion offuch as are counted Avhns^ 
tcith relation to the Deity of Chrifij as this other 
Text ; and yet do I or others cavil at that ? 

I think this fhould^ convince any Adan who is not too 
far gone in Pajfton and Prejudice^ that ''tis Difference 
of Evidence makes me willing to admit the one^ and 
reje^ the other ^ fince there is no more difficulty (^and 
indeed I find none at all) in reconciling the one to 
my Opinions J than the other: And indeed 1 was as 
eafy in my prefcnt Sentiments while I did not rejeC^ 
this Text, but thought it more probably genuine^ as I 
am'ftnce. .1 think this may fatisfy : And yet J don't 
know but he that can heartily believe the Words ge- 
nuine without the Authority of one Manufcript, may 
think it eafy for another to disbelieve ^cm^ tho he 
» found '^'em in all. 

it may be obfirved how, ready fome are to inflame 
their People with Indignation and Rage againfi fuch ' 
as differ from themy and that in Matters they are no 
way capable Judges of. We know well what the marking 
Men out in the Pulpit with odious Cenfures ferves to. 

I am forry if thefe are fome of the firfi Fruits of 
the ^m^ Indulgence granted^ vitj. to fall fofoul upon 
others, even before ihat was quite finifhed, I fup- 
pofe^ to cenfure and kffen i^^ Name or Marks, w a 
Liberty which the kindtft Laws never intended : When 
thefe provided that Difientcrs flwuld not be diflurbed 
by others^ it was fuppofed others (hould not be affronted 
by perfonal open Reflexions from them, 

t Why 



The Preface. vii 

Why carit a Point of Criticifm, or Hiflory, ov 
an Opinion be calmly argued ? Can't a Man go in-- 
to a Pulpit without Heat and Ruffle^ and there pro- 
duce his Evidences fairly ? If he can find none that 
fleafe him^ he need not he forward to undertake it^ 
but fhould not be out of humour •, by which 'tis great 
oddsy but he will expofe one more than he intended. 

I meddle not with his Arguments , for indeed 
they were deferred till the next \ and if his Kca^ 
fons he as firong in his next turn^ as I thought 
his Paffions were in the laft, it will make much 
more Imprejfion on me. And 1 promife him that 
if he will try me with but half the Evidence^ nay 
fvith one quarter of the twenty Greek Manu- 
fcripts, which he concluded I would cavil againfi:, 
he /hall find J am not fo perverfe as he repre- 
fented me. And when he gratifies the World with 
thefe Difcourfes, // he will come forth as a Scholar^ 
or rather as a Chrtjlian^ ferene and ingenuous^ and I 
fhould judge it requifite to take any notice of them *, I 
affure him I am not fo diflurbed^ but that I really in^ 
tend to ufe more Temper and Civility out of the Pul- 
pit, than 1 have fome times feen in it ; / remember 
the Servant of the Lord muft not ftrive, but in 2 rim. 2. 
Meeknefs inftrudt thofe whooppofe. 24,2$. 

lam fofenfible that Victory ^ in angry and unchari- 
table Strifes^ even forX^uth itfelf^ however it may gra- 
tify ourprefent Vanity ^ is yet inglorious \ and fo inju* 
riousto the Inter efis of our Holy Religion ^ that I am 
ready to fear^ what a certain General is [aid to have 
rcpW^y when congratulated upon a great but coj^ly 
Vtmy^ Thatak^ fuch Vidories will undo us, 

Jan, 24.1718. TT F 

An 






i-A n 



•^■p-^-i?-^ 










^« Anfwer to Air. MartinV 
Dijfertation on j John 5. 7. 




K.MARTIN, Minifler of the Frfwr^ 
Church at 'L'rrfck, having publifbed 
a Dijfertation in defence of the ge- 
nuine Authority of i y^^^w 5. 7. 7'/;ffrff 
^rf r/?rffff that hear Record in Heaverty 
&c. wherein he pretends to give a fufficienc 
Proof of its Authority, and to enervate the Ar- 
guments given by me from Dr. Mill, of its be- 
ing a manifeft Inter pi at ion-, I thought it proper 
to confider what he hath fiid, and to difpel that 
Mift, wherewith, by fpecious Infinuations, and 
fine Suppofitions, and fmooth Turns, he has en- 
deavoured to impofe upon the Minds of fuch 
as do not thoroughly uaderftand the Matters of 
ta^. 

This Gentleman is alarmed to this Defence by 
an Opinion of the mighty Confequence of tnis 
fupj)ofed Text, for the Support of the Orthodox 
Doctrine % and is therefore very earnelt not to let 
go his hold of it, the he pretends indeed the 
fame thing is to be found in many other PUces of 
Holy Scripture ^ which yet 1 apprehend he has fonre 
diftruft of. 

B For 



i Jn Anftver to Kr. Martin 5 

For my part, I think 1 am no way influenced 
by any fuch contrary Motive^ in writing on the 
other fide of the Qpeltion, being fully fatisfy'd 
' that the Words, if g^nuine^ were as favourable 
to thofe call'd Arians^ as to any •, and clearly 
would argue againft the SahelUan Vnity of ont 
pnoje Mind^ or one intelligent Being \ becaufe it 
would make the three Witnejfes to dwindle again 
into hut one^ and fo to lofe much of the Force of 
the Argument {vom thre^.- And t therefor e C^i^ 
la loc. vin and Bezut declare, that 'tis' not Vnity of Be- 
ing' Is here fpokea. of, but Vnity of Covfem and 
Teflimony \ which will imply dijlinU Minds con- 
curring in their Evidence, fince Confent is al- 
ways^ between more than on€ : So that it injures 
Mr. i^^mVs Caufe to depend on fuch a Proof; 
as, Erafmus fays ■^. 

I ^ only concerned to do juftice to the Sa- 
cred Writings^ and to difcover what is true in it 
felf^ not what is convenient or agreeable to my 
hking. And as my Dellgn at firfi was to Itate 
the FaBs on Dr. Mill\ Evidence^ fo 1 judge I did 
make it appear that he had left no Foundation 
for the jult fupport of the Authority of this 
fuf^ofed Text : Bat yet if any new Evidence arifes, 
or any well attefted Authorities^ or, hitherto con- 
cealed, Manvfcrifts of Credit, can be produced, 
I am as ready as any Man to allow 'em a due re- 
gard. But Mr. Martin has not try'd me, I con- 
ceiyie, with any fuch Matters as thefe; but with 
fine Suppofitions^ and abftrafted PoffibiUties^ of this 
and the other thing, which in a Matter of Fad^ 
will not go very far with me againlt plainer E- 
vidence. 



* Hoc non eft confirmare Fidem, fed fufpedara reddere, fi 
nobis hujuimodi Lemmatis yandiamur. EraJ, in locum* 

He 



t)ijfertation on \ John j. 7. % 

He fuppofes the Words in debate might not 
harm the Context^ nor difjgree to St. John% Stile ^ 
but what is this to the purpofc, to prove that in 
Ja^ they were originally written by him? 'Tis 
fo eafy by one fetch or other, according to Mens 
various Fancies, to wind atmofl any thing into 
an obfcure Context, when once it is refolved it 
mufi be in *, that I take inch Arguments to be bat 
trifling Supplements, where good Reafons are 
wanting. But then as to what he calls a third 
advantage in favour of the Text, viz.- That his ch. i* 
Adverfarys cannot produce one fmgU Tajfage from the 
jintients^ whence it may appear that they had any 
Sufpicion concerning this Text : It may be faid 
that it had been indeed ftrange, if any had made 
a Difpute about a Text^ which they had never 
feen or heard of*, which I think is true of the 
Primitive Writers for many Centuries : and for 0- 
thers iince, 'tis no wonder if creeping^ into 
private Books in Ages of Darknefs and Confufion, 
we find no notice remaining of any Oppofition 
of theirs to what did not offend them. 

On the other hand, there are three great Dif- 
advantages which Mr. Martin labours and finks 
under, and which are fatal to his Caufe. 

I. That he has not produced one genuine Greek 
Writer that ever cited this Text^ thro fo many 
hundreds of Years paft. Even the fpurious 5y- 
nopjis Scripture among Athanafitus Works, by fay- 
ing that St. John jhews m the Vnity of the Son with 
the Father^ gives no ground to fay that this un- 
certain Author had this Text in his eye ^ pro- 
bably it refers rather to fome other PalTages, 
(toc^. 2. 23.; or to the 8th Verfe of this 5th 
Chapter myftically interpreted, &c. However, <. 
who, or at what time, this Author, whether 
Greek or Latin^ was, is not known. 

B 2 2. That 



Jn Anjwer to Mr. Martin'^ 

2. That he cannot dired us to one Manufcrift 
Greek Copy in the World, where this Text is at 
this day to be found ^ and yet the Manufcripts 
have been in very fafe keeping with the Ortho- 
dox all along : fo that if ever they had been feen 
with this Text in 'em, they might be fo ftill. If 
^rian Kings and Emperors had borne the Sway, wc 
fhould have had it confidently faidby Men of flight 
Thought, that then it was thefe Manufcriptsof 
Stephens^ and the Britljij Manufcripts, and the 
Vatican Manufcripts, &c, were alter'd, and the 
Words rafed out, as now they vainly pretend it 
might be of old j but who has alter'd 'em all now: 
fmce the Reformation f 

3. That he has not produced one credible Wit- 
nefs, that ever diredly faid he had at any time 
feen any one particular Greel Manufcript in which 
this Text was ^ or defcribed it by any Mark of 
Diftindion, by which it may be known, upon In- 
quiry after it. We have feveral indefinite Affer- 
tions, that^tis^ zndthsLt we find it^ and the like, in 
fome Copies, as Bez,a and P. Amelot fpeak ^ but 
that they faw it themfelves, and took it not from 
others upon loofe Prefumption, is, 1 think, not 
once fully manifefted : and it fignify'd nothing to 
mention Ximenes^ and Cajetan^ and Laurentiui 
Vdia^ and more fuch, only to make a pompous 
Show of Names and Numbers for nothing ; when 
'tis not proved they fay any thing to the Point 
in hand : and one may fay of 'em all, as Erafmus 
of Laurent ins ValU^ Quid legerity non fatis liquet \ 
How Valla read^ is not evident* But of this Mat- 
ter foniewhat more particular (hall be faid, when 
I come to examine what Mr. Martin ^^"^s of the 
Creek Manufcripts. And indeed, 'tis only on this 
third Head that I need much to concern my felf : 
for as to the two former Points, he makes no great 
Defeace , the genuine Greek Writers^ and the pre- 

fcnt 



Dtffertation on \ John 5.7* 5 

fent Greeh Manufcripts are not to be found, nor are 
fo much as fummoned in for Witnefles on his 
fide. 

Indeed, Mr, Martin would fain invalidate this ^"^'f-'^^i* 
negative Argument, from the total Silence of the ^' 
Greek Fathers^ and that of the Latins too^ for 
400 Years, (for he has not proved S. Cyprians 
Words to be more than his Interpret M.ion of the 
8 th K(?r. as Facundtis^ yea and Fulgent ins too, as 
I had (hown, do declare 'em to be) by pretending 
that they might be in other Writings of the Antients 
which are lofi ^ or that it might not come into their 
Minds to mention 'em : even as that Text of 
Baptiz^ing in the Name of the Father^ Son^ and Spirit^ 
was not nitntion'd by fome of them, in feveral 
of their Works where it might have been proper. 

Bat is this like the Cafe we are upon? For as 
thofe Words were not fo peculiarly necefTiry for 
their purpofe againft any Adverfaries they had 
to do with J fo 'tis granted, that if they were 
omitted in one part of the Writings, they are 
ftill alledg'd in another ^ or if by one Writer, 
yet they are cited by others, both G'r^f^ and La- 
tin •, and alfo have the concurrence of the antient 
Greek Manvfcripts to back it all. Now is this, or 
any thing like it, to be faid in the prefent Cafe ? 
where the Text in difpute is not once mentioned, 
neither in one genuine Greek Writer nor in ano- 
ther^ neither in one part of their Works, nor in 
another *, and where they had fuch provoking fre- 
quent Occafions, as would not fuffer 'em to be, all 
of 'em, and always^ forgetful of fo proper a 
Text^ a Text fo emphatical and fo fingular, fuch 
an one that Mr. Martin^ and fome others, cannot 
tell how to fpare ^ and where, all the Greek Ma- 
nufcripts known to us, are ^s filent as the Greek 
Fathers^ and the Latins too for many Ages. Can 
any negative Argument be ftronger ? Or can there 

B 3 be 



6 ~ An Anfwerto Mr. Martin 5 

be any but negative Arguments to prove a Ne- 
gative ? And (hall it be enough not to ^nfwer^but 
evade fucb Proof, by ftrange Suppofitions of ex- 
treme Poflibilitics of fuch things, to which per- 
haps the like never yet happened ? 

Mr. A^^r/^«'s 2d, 3d,and 4th C/7^/;rfrjarenothing 
but a Proof,by a long Series from the 14th Age back- 
wards to the time ofCharlemain^ ti^atthls Text was 
in the Latin Bibles in thefe Weftern Parts 5 fo that 
he pleafes himfelf with tracing it up to the End' 
of ihQ Eighth Century in the Latin Copy : which 
yet is no more than has been freely allow'd on all 
fides •, I mean that this Text has from that Age 
been found in divers Lapin Copies, not in all^ or 
in the mofl: ^ the nearer they were to€^r prefent 
Times, the more they agreed in this Point v 
and the higher we go, the Evidence appears 
weaker and weaker, till ■ at laft, without the 
help of a ftrong Fancy, we can difcern none at 
all. 

And even in thefe Latin Bibles 'tis confefs'd, 

that this Text is in various fhapes j in fome the 

Words in Heaven are wanting^ in others, thefe 

Three are one *, and in fome the whole Verfe : forae- 

times the 8th rerfe comes before it, and fome- 

times 'tis as in our fre/ent printed Books ^ fome- 

times'tis in the Texr^ and fometimes in the Mar^ 

gin. And tho Father Simon owns the Words to be 

in that antient Manvfcrift of Lotharius^ copied 

Crh. Hi/i, from Charlemains Bible '^ yet he fays, that it 

»fthe Text ^^ greatly di^figured^ ■ ■ fame Words interlind^ 

^' and fome defaced^ to fvbftitute other Words in 

their place: fo that he might well reckon this 

, to be of lefs antient Authority, than the Body 

of the Copy; and therefore there was no great 

reafonhere to triumph over him as contradiSiing 

himfelf 

Such 



Dijfertation on \ John 5. 7. 

Such Marks of Coafufioa feem plainly to (hew, 
that this Text had, as yet, been a Stranger there, 
and had not any fixed Settlement aflTigned to it; 
perhaps in St. Bemardh time, viz., in the Xlth 
uige^ it might be got into the Ordo RomanM^ and 
the Offices of the Church, both Latin and Greek \ 
even as in England^ I find thefe fame Words were 
introduced among the EpiftUs into the Common- 
Prayer oiVA^g Edward 6tb^ without any mark of 
Sufpicion, while at the fame time, and long after, 
they were marked for doubtful in the publick and 
common Bibles. So that it docs not always follow, 
from a Text's being quoted, or being brought into 
the Ojfices of a Church, or placed in the Bible it 
felf, that it was received as undoubtedly genuine, 
becaufe the Offices of a Church are fometiraes apt, 
as we fee, to out-run their Bible \ and Pofterity 
will be abufed, if any, in after Ages, (hall per- 
fuade'em, that the £«!^/:y?j Church o^ this or thQ 
lafi: Age^ prefer'd the old reading of Pfnlm 105. 
28. And they were not obedient to his Word^ merely 
becaufe 'tis retain'd in the Church's Office or 
Pfalter ', when 'tis fo well known, that all our 
more common, and publickly authorized Bibles, 
have for above an hundred Years maintain'd the 
reading, which is juftcontradidory to it, viz. And 
they rebelled not ^gainft his Word. So that it Would 
be a wrong Step to fuppofe our Zeal for Vnlfor* 
mity had been carryM fo far as this \ I mean, to aa 
exad Agreement of the Church-Service with the 
Church-Bible. 

Bat what tho this Text were found to be di- 
redly in the Bible of Charlemain^ vfhkh Father 
Simon oppofes not ? will this prove it to have 
been in the Greek Manufcripts at that time ? la 
the LAtin for certain, it has long been, and is in 
many other Verfions at this day \ and yet we have 
not found hitherto one Greek M^nufcript^ by which 
B 4 10 



3- 



8 An Anfiver to Mr, Martin'5 

to juftify it : And therefore tbo Charlemain^ about 
jinn. 798. caufed the vulgar Latin Bible to be 
revitwM and purged of many Errors and Cor- 
ruptions that had crept into it, fince St. Jeroni^^ 
time^ and tothatend ''mploy'd Alcuin^ and other 
learned Men of that Age ^ it will not prove they 
bad the Authority of any Greek Manufcript to 
warrant this Text, as Mr. Martin would have us 
to foppofe. h ts not to be imagined^ fays he, that 
^' ^' ' thefe learned Men woud only confult and compare 
with the LaUn. Copies'^ they wou^d go^ without doubt', 
to the original Greek of the New Teftament : and 
pleafantly asks, if Father Simon himfelf (had he 
been one of them) would have put in THIS TEXT 
n^onthe Credit of a few Copies only among many^bcc* 

B'lt 'tis abfurd to think, the Men oi that Age 
rooud or cou^d take fuch Meafures as the Learned 
of the prefent Age woa'd ^ for as the Greek Ma- 
Tjufcripts were probably very rare, and hard to be 
come at in the Weft em parts, fo the Learned of 
thofe Times had fcarce any thing of that critical 
Skill, or Genim^ which thefe later Ages have ar- 
rived at, and which is fo neceflary for fuch a 
Work : It does not appear that they took any 
pains to compare with one Greek Manufcripty 
which, if they had had before 'em as their Rule 
here, and had made luch account of, they might 
probably have been ftiil preferved to us : but 
as we have no fuch Alanvfcript to be now found, 
or that has been feen, as far as we know, for 
any of the Ages paft, between us and them ^ fo 
it does not appear there ever was one fuch in the 
World. Nay, if they folio w'd one, or a few, 
even of the Latin Manvfcripts^ where different 
from the mofi and beft^ i think 'tis no great won- 
der. I am fatisfy'd this has been often done, 
viz.. to prefer the Pvcading, that has pleafed befl", 
when againft the mofi and the befi Copies. Did 

not 



Viffertdtion on i John 5. 7. ^ 

not the Complutenfijtfi Editors fo? Did not Erafmpu 
do it ? And why might not thcfe Revifers under 
Charlemain^ have the An fa calumniandi as mach at 
heart as he had ? efpecially fince they might 
fancy, as others do now, that this Text might 
have been omitted, as the Preface, under St. Je- 
rome Nime, to the feven Epiftles, does fugged j 
which Father Simon judges (and the contrary does 
not appear by Mr. Martin himfelf) to havebeea 
about this fame time compofed and inferred ; and 
to give it the greater Authority^ they father'd it 
xx'^onjerom. Not having any Authority to pro- 
duce from anyCref^ Copies of their own tojufti- 
fy their Com|)laiiJt of i\\q L,%tin Tranflators O- 
miffDn, perhaps they might think it belt to re- 
fer the matter back to St. Jerom *, efpecially if 
they found it already put in any Copies of his 
l^atin Bihle^ tho, by a late Corruption, which 
carry'd no offence in it to them : this might aiford 
'em a fpecious Plea, and wou'd prevail upon many 
others, \ believe, to do the like in their Cafe, 
when there were none to remonftrate againft it. 
So that if they did but as others have done, the 
whole Argument is fpoil'd. 

And then Mr. Martin will fall fhort of his Coti" 
clufion^ viz.. that from this Review of the Latin 
Bible, j4nno^<)%. there cm be no doubt at all made -^ 
but this TfXt had been current in the Bibles of the 7th, 
6th, and the 5th Ages\ becaufe^ fays he, we cant 
fupfofe they went by Manufcripts of lefs than two or 
three hundred Tears fianding j and fo they muft have 
had at once before ^ em Qand not, but they ought to 
have had^ &c, as the Englifi Tranflator puts it] 
both the Copies of St. Jerom'j Bible^ and aifo them of 
the old Italick yerfion made in the fecond Century^ 
pnd which had continued to the feventh^ to be the 
Bible of all the Latin Churches : and then Concludes, 
that this ckuily Ihews, The Text had ever been inch, 5.' 

the 



}o Jn Jnfwj/' to Mr.M.imns 

the vvlgar Ferfion. And thus, by the Strength- 
of a vigorous Imagination, he is fpeedily arrived, 
in a manner, at the End of his Journey ^ with- 
out being beholden to any the leaft Proof by way 
of Evidence, that thefe Revifers did find, or did" 
fay they found, the Text in any one Greek Manu* 
fcrip^ or in Sr. 'Jerome'%^ or in the halick Verfion 
it felf ^ much lefs that they found it in any an^ 
tient Copies of Credit, that might fhew it was 
jio Innovation, if it was found in any others. 

Idonotfee h\itMx. Mart w^ without tiring his 
Fancy by a long train of Suppofitions, might 
as well have made (horter work, by faying, (for 
I can't well call it arguing) that we fee at prefent 
our printed Copies have this Ferfe \ and we ought 
not to doubt but the World has always been ^o 
honeft^ fo wife^ fo watchful^ and careful^ that it 
cou'd never have been brought in, if it had not 
always been in the true Copy from the fir ft. 
But yet, alas, 'tis too evident, that feveral Cor- 
ruptions, Interpolations, and OmifTions, have 
happened frequently, before the Art of Printing, 
according to the Skill, the Care, or the Fancy of 
the Tranfcribers ^ and for that reafon, St. Jerom 
was put upon correding the Lmn Ferfion of the 
INewTeftament with very great Labour and Diffi* 
culty: and afterwards we fee Charlemain caufed 
another Review to be made, becaufe of new Cor- 
ruptions : and then in the tenth Century, the 
Sorbon anoihQw^ 

And 'tis as certain, that fuch Reviews are not 
wont to fet all things right again •, that upon a 
little doubt, fome things are removed, and others 
that pleafe better are retain'd, upon very Hin- 
der grounds ^ fo that we muft not prefume and 
foppofe, that all was done which we now thinll 
Was_^^ to he done. 

The truth is, the World has already too long 

gone 



DiJJertation on i John 5.7^ 1 1 

gone upon SuppoJItions in this matter, and 'tis that 
has brought us into this Confulion. The Learned 
fappofed for a long time, that the Compluten/i4ft 
Editors had kept clofe to the Vatican Manu^ 
fcripts i efpecially to that famous, and molt an- 
tient one, recommended to their exad Regard 
by Pope Leo ^ and therefore that they had this 
good Authority for putting this f^erfe into their 
Edition. But, tho this is more than Mr. Martin 
has to warrant his Confidence in the Charlcmaiit 
Revlfers^ yet, it feems, the Learned fuppofed 
too much here, fince thefe Manufcripts are found 
to want what was fuppofed to be taken from 
them. Thus the Learned World }ong fuppofed 
th^t Stephens had nine 6'r^f^ Copies which hdd this 
Ferfe^ and /(ft'f/? more that had all but the Words 
in Heaven'^ and what is become of their Suppo- 
fitions ? I believe Mr. Martin will part with 
fome of them •, and yet they were very plaufible, 
and partly grounded on Stephens*^ own, but mifta- 
ken Account: and yet mult we Itill be treated 
with fuch trifling Suppofitions in the fame Cafe, 
inftead of Evidence ? But there is no end of 
fuppofing, on one fide and on the other ; and I 
have no Fondnefs for a Conteft, which not 
the ftrongefl; Reafon, but the Itrongeft; Imagi- 
nation muit decide. 

1 Ihall take my leave of this Subjed, by (hew- 
ing only how groundlefs and falfe Mr. Martini 
fundamental Suppofition is, viz,. That the Latin 
Bibles, of the 6th^ and 7/^, and ^th Ages ge- 
nerally had this Texty from the decifive words of 
that tranfcendent Critical Genius of this Age, 
Dr. * Bentley> 

^ Two Letters to the Reverend Dr. Bentley, concernhig his 
intended Edition of the Greek Tefiament, with the Dodor's 
Anfwer, and fome account of what ma<j be expelled from that 
Edition, /. 24,25. 

/ 



1 1 Jn Anfwer to Mr. MartinV 

I formed a Thought^ a priori, that if St. Jerom'j 
true Latin Exemplar coud be come at^ it vooiPd he 
found to agree exaSily with the Greek Text of the 
fame J^ge'-y and fo the old Copes of each Age (if 
fo agreeing) wou*d give mutual Proof to each other. 
Whereupon^ rejeBing the printed Editions of each^ 
and the fever al Manufcripts of feven Centurys^ and 
'Under -i I made ufe of none^ but thefe of a Thou f and 
Tears ago^ or above ^ {of which fort I have Twen* 
ty now in my Study^ that one with another^ make 
20000 Tears*) I had the Pleafure to find^ as I 
frefaged^ that they agreed exaBly like two Tallies^ 
or two Indentures \ By this you fee that in my 

fropofed Work^ the Fate of that Verfe f i. e. I John 

5. 7.) will be a mere Gueftion of FaSl, And 

if the fourth Century knew that Texty let it come in^ 
in God^s Name : But if that Age did not know it^ 
then Arianifm in its height was beat down, without 
the help of that Ferfe : and let the FaB prove how 
it will, the Dothrine is unjhaken. Now if thefe 
twenty fo antient Copies all agree in wanting 
that Ferfe, fas I am fatisfy'd, none fuppofes they 
agree in having it) we may fee what Credit is 
due to Mr. Martinh ftrongeft Imagination, con- 
cerning the Copies of thofe Ages. Here is plain 
Facl againft his extravagant Fancies, And I doubt 
jiot, when the Dodor, who alone appears to be 
parhuic negotio, (hall gratify the expeding World 
with his Noble Performance, things will be fet in 
a yet clearer Light. 

Mr. Martin's "^th Chap, is an Attempt to re- 
trieve the Credit of the pretended Preface of 
St. Jerom to the 7 Eprftles -, which complains 
much of the Latin Tranllatorsof the New Tellta- 
rnent, that they had omitted this Verfe, which ' 
the Greek Co^its had in them. If this had been 
genuine, it had been of great weight ', but for 
many Reafons the Learned have judged it to be 

a 



f)iJfertation on \ John 5.7. 13 

a Forgery in St. Jerom's Name : fome of thefe 
Reafons Mr. Martin thinks not to be fufficient, 
but that ftill it may pojpbly be St. Jerorns own 
Work. But he can never give a good anfwer to 
all: For the Preface profefles him to have rc- 
Itored thui f^erfe^ after fuch injuftice done to it; 
and declares it to be a principal Support of th^ 
Chrifiian Faith^ hy which the one Svhfiance of Father^ 
Son and Holy Spirit^ is confirmed. But then how 
comes it, that this Text^ in all St. Jerom'^Un^ 
Writings, where he contends for this faith, and 
fearches fo much for 'Texts and Arguments, 
is not once mentioned by him ? Cou'd he omit 
what he judged the great Rampart of his Faith ? 
Cou'd he always omit, and always forget, fuch 
a Text, which he had been the Preferver and 
Keflorer of j and wou'd therefore be more than 
ordinarily fond and careful of? Befides, St. Jerom 
furely wou'd never be guilty of fuch a falfe In- 
finuacion that all the Greek Copies had this Verfe^ 
when the total (ilence of all the Creek Fathers 
in that, and preceding Ages, is an undeniable 
Evidence of the contrary^ not to be anfwer'd 
by little Prefumptions and airy Suppofitions. 

But Mr. Martin ufes fuch an Argument, Chap. ^ 
which he fays is very confiderahle^ to prove this 
Trefiice was St. Jerom's and not a Forgery, that 
I confefs is to me very furprizing. 7/, fays 
he, the Writer of it was a feigned Verfon^ who de^ 
figned to put off his own Piece for St. Jerom'j, he 
was certainly not a Mufier of much Addrefs^ in com^ 
plaining of unfaithful Tranflations in his Time'j 
for no one can produce the leafi Proofs that new 
La fin Verlions were ever made in the Age "'tis pre» 
tended thu Preface was compojed : whereas ^tis plain 
from St, /\ugultin, 5r. Jerom'j Cotempcrary^ that 
0n their Days divers had undertaken to make Latin 

Verlions «/r^^ JNevv Teftament, and undoubtedly 

• th€ 



1 4 Ai J^nfwer to Mr. Martin'^ 

the Complaint iti the Preface refpeUed fome one ef 
thefe Verfions ^ which is a conpderable Reafon to prove 
it was truly St. Jerom'j. Now I can'c but think 
Juft the contrary, that the feigned Author, by 
this was a Manof ^r^^t Addrep : for if he in- 
tended a Fidion in St. Jerorns Name, it was 
to be fuited to St. Jerorns Time, when Mr. Mar- 
tin fays, there were divers Ferfions m^idiQ ^ and 
having fa id none cm produce the leafi Proof of 
Latin Verfions made in that Age which this Preface 
was pretended to be compofed in^ he fays, there is 
plain Proof, that in St. Jeromh Days^ there were 
\\xq\\ Verfions^ which is the very Age it was pre- 
tended for : but if he means the feigned Man 
fliou'd have framed a Preface^ in St. Jeromh 
Name, that had only been fuitable to Charlemains 
Age, he had been a Bungler indeed, tho, with 
Mr. Martin^ a. Man of Addrefs. But if fuch 
Reafoning as this can confirm him in this Opinion^ 
it will be very difficult to conceive how he (hou'd 
ever be unfectled in any thing. May 1 not fay 
to him, what he, on no Reafon that I can fee, 
fays of Dr. Mill *, Sure he did not con fid er what 
he faid^ \j^Ot^ did not think what he faid^ aS the 
Bnglifh Tranflacion is, Ch. 5. at the end"^ and 
his Eyes and Vnderftanding went not together* 

But Mr. Martin fays, ^Tis of no great moment^ 
whether it he granted to he St, Jerom'j or not^ be- 
caufe he thinks it will yet prove this Text to 
have all along been in the Bible v in that the Pre- 
face muft be allowed to be -very antient^ and to 
have been in the Bibles^ for above 800 Tears ^ and 
F. Simon fuppofes it put in by fome of thofe who re- 
*vifed the Bible under Charlemain. Hence he ar- 
gues, that if thefe Learned Men' made this com- 
plaint of theUnfaithfulnefsof the Latin Tranf- 
lators in omitting this Verfe^ it is a certain Ar- 
gument of its having been in St, Jerom'j Bible *, 

elfe 



f)iJfertntion on t John 5.7. i y 

elfe they cou'd not have brought fuch an Acca- 
fation. 

1 grant they cou'd not juftly do fo, nnleft 
tbey knew it had been even in all the Greek Co* 
pies too, which therefore they pretend ^ but they 
might do this unjuftly^ i. e. without Ground, 
and upon miftaken Prefumption, as I have al- 
ready faid ^ or perhaps upon juft fuch Suppofi- 
tion as Mr. Martin himfelf goes upon, w^hen he 
fays, in his 6th Chap, that either this Verfe was 
in St. Aufiins Bible, or that it ovght to have been 
in it^ becaufe it was in fome Bibles of that time. 
And fo, for ought I know, fome Latin Bibles might 
have,r/;<? Verfe in them in the 8>/; Age, and be- 
fore ^ and perhaps the Compofers of this Preface 
were as loth to think, it was put lately in, as 
Mr. Martin is : and contrary to what he fays of 
F. Sirhon^ I may ask him, whether if he had been 
one of them^ he wou'd not have done the fame 
thing according to his way of Reafoning, or 
rather of Prefuming^ without Evidence. 

But if, from the former Evidence of Dr. Bent" 
/f/s words, it appears in Fad, that SLjerorn*^ 
Bible had not this 7ext^ then there is an end 
of this Difpute, and the Prologue cou'd not be ch. $: 
his^ fince, 'tis granted to be ridiculous^ to fup- Part i. 
pofe he ihou'd reproach other Tranllators, for 
leaving out this Text^ and yet himfelf leave it 
out in that Copy to which this Preface was made : 
therefore the Preface is a Forgery ^ and be it 
whofe it will, is of no force to prove that this 
Text had been either in St. Jerorris^ or in any 
CreekCo"^^, So that the great, and middle Link 
of the imaginary Chain in the Sr/? Age^ is bro- 
ken \ on which hangs the Suppofition of fuch 
Greek ManufcriptSy for about 7 Centuries before, 
and which fupported that Suppofition for about 
as many Centuries after j till Matters of Fad 

came 



\6 An Anfwer to Mr. MartinV 

came to be looked into, and the Greek Manu-- 
fcripts themfelves infped^ed '•, which, we (ball fee 
piefently, are all wrong oa Mr. Martinh fide, 
when I have corifidered the few private G>^f/(7wx 
of his two next Chapters. 

^v, Martin^ in his <5f^ and ']th Chapters^ goes 
on to prove that this Text was in the antient 
ItalicJi Ferfton of the New Teftament. This he 
wou'd infer, from its being in St. Jerom\ which, 
I hope appears already to be a groundlefs Sur- 
mife j and fo the Argument will turn on the 
other (ide, and be retorted upon him, viz.. that 
if St. Jerom% New Teftament had not this Text^ 
'tis a great fign, the ItaUcky which he correded, 
had it not neither : Otherwife his Bible had been 
fo defeSlive^ that it woud have been bitterly eX' 
claimed again ft ^ by fuch as made fuch ado with him^ 
about his changing but one fingle word for another \ 
as we learn out of St. Auguflin, 

As for his Inftances of the mention of this 
Text h^Fulgentins (in the 6th Century) and by P^i^ 
gilitu Tapfenjis^ I pafs them by, as I had done be- 
fore, as coming too late to be of any great ufe 
in the Cafe ^ nor can the mention of this 
Text by them or nEior Vitenfis^ fignify any thing 
more than what 1 had fuppofed formerly, viz.. 
that at the latter end of the %th Century^ fome 
might begin to pretend that for Text, which 
had ^o long and currently been the Interpreta- 
tion of the next Verfe. And therefore I did not, 
as Mr. Martin infinuates, put by Vi^or Fitenfis*% 
Teftiraony, for being a fabulous Writer ; but 
1 (hewed, (to which Mr. Martin hath made no 
reply) that \t was no Evidence of the current 
Admi(rion of that TfArf, or of its long (landing •, 
and tjiat from the common way, in that Age 
and Place, of interpreting the next Verfe^ in 
fuch a manner as cou'd not well confill with ha- 
rum^ Ving 



Differ tat ton on i John y. 7. i/ 

ving this Text al fo in their publick Bibles : I fay 
their fuhlick Bibles^ becaufc as F.Simon has fhewn, Hi/i, of 
that tho it appears not that different Latin Veifionsi 
Tranflations were then read in the VVeftern ^* 3* 
Churches, yet private Ferfons took the liberty of 
making new Tranflations ^ and that by this di- 
ftindlion, between the Bible read in the publick 
Service, and thefe particular Ferfions^ we may 
eafily refolve the Objedions taken from TertuIUan^ 
Cyprian^ &c. whofe Citations agree not with the 
Jtalick Verfion. They read, the vulgar Copy with 
the People^ which w^s in ufe in their Churches, 
becaufc they c^ud not do otherwife : hut in their 
Writings^ they took the liberty to tranjlate as they 
thought fit. 

And therefore fuppofing FiBor'*s relation of 
that Confejfion of Faith to be truly as we have 
it, yet whether drawn up by one Bifhop or by 
four^ it does not follow that this Text, even at 
the end of the ^th Age^ was in their common 
Bibles^ tho they might have fome Countenance^' 
or fome Notions on which they prefumed to bring 
in the words for a Proofs whether it was that 
they had the direft words in iQ'^tXdX private Books, 
or relied on the current myftical Interpretation 
of the next Verfe to bear them out : which la(t 
may, for ought I fee, be all that is intended ia 
fuch Teftimonies or Citations of thefe Words- 
I do not confidently aflert it, or fay, that even 
thefe late Writers had only "Three iVitnefes^ in 
the Bible ^ which fometimes they mentioned by 
their diredt Names, IVater^ Blood and Spirit^ and 
fometimes by their myfticd Names, Father^ Son^ 
and Spirit ^ or father^ Word and Spirit : but I 
conceive there is fome ground to think fo from 
this, viz^» that while one fpeaks of the Water^ 
Blood and the Spirit .^ and another of Father^ Word, 
and Sfiritj as St. Johns three Witnejfes j I have not 
C obferved 



1 8 Jn Anfwer to Mr* Martin 5 

obferved that any of them fpeak of ^ both together, 

or of /at Witneffes : which looks as if it was all but 

ofte Text^ with its Interpretation. (I confefs 

Eucheriui^s Teftimony, in the next Chap, has all 

fx fet down there *, but to that I fhall have fome- 

thing to fay.) So that for ought appears, Mr. 

Martin\ Cloud of Witnejfes^ as he calls this huge 

number of ^/nV^w Bifhops ; everyone^ fays he, 

coming with his Bible in his Hand^ offering tts this 

Fajf^ge e>/5r. John to read ^ may be but a Cloud of 

an hand' breadth^ three or four only, without any 

Warrant from the publick Copies, long efta- 

blilhed, as it appears by others of that Country 

in that fame Age, from what has been already 

faid. 

The Teftimonies of Eucherim^ Cyprian^ and 
P^ 7* Tertullian^ are to carry on the Proof of th^ It dick 
Verfions having this Text % but as here is nothing 
new about St. Cyprian^ (to which TertvlUan is but 
an Appendix) lb I have already ftated the matter 
P^333> concerning him in my former Difcourfe, and have 
6*^. accounted for what Mr. Martin here repeats ^ 
but betakes no notice that even Fulgentius^ whom 
he brings to confront Facundm^ does rather, asl 
have fhown, confirm his Judgment of Cyprian's 
words, viz.' that they are an Interpretation of 
the Sth Verfe ^ and for certain they are not the 
direft words of the jth Kerfe contended for. 
And yet here is all that is pretended to, from 
St. Jo^;?'s Time to the 5?/? Century *, for neither 
Creek nor Latin^ fmall nor great Writer, for fo 
many hundred Years, gives the leaft fhadow of a 
Proof, that they knew any thing of this great 
and remarkable Text \ perhaps the moft obvious, 
and adapted for their conftant occalions, of any 
Text in the Bible. And yet this contefted 
PaiTagc of St. Cyprian only, fo well accounted for, 
aad upon fo good Authority, muft outweigh 

all, 



Dijfertation on i John j. 7- 1 9 

all, even againfl: the exprefs Tellimony and Senfe 
given of Sr. Cyprian\ words, by a following Bijhop 
of the Time Country, whom none contradid, and 
whofe Tellimony, if believed, is entirely dcci- 
five. 

But the Paflage Mr. Martin brings out of Ew 
cherit4Sj of which indeed I was not aware before, 
will need more Gonfidcration -^ for tho it only 
concerns the '$th Century^ in which I did allow 
that pofTibly the Words might become Text^ in 
fome Books,, yet it will carry it half a Century 
higher, than the Confejfion of the African Bi- 
Ihops in y^i^or Vitenjis : and, I confefs if the 
Paifage be genuin^^ it is more to the purpofe 
than any, yea than all the other Teftimonies, 
before or after Eucherit^^ for fome hundreds of 
Years : becaufe here we find both the ^th and 
Sri? Ferfes together^ at once to (hew us all the fix 
Witnejfes\ and that there was Father^ Wordy 
and Spirit^ befide what was faid of the Water^ 
Blood and Spirit -^ whereas, only Father^ Wordj 
and Spirit^ might have been the fame Things 
myftically interpreted, after the prevailing Cuf- 
tom of that Time. So that I cannot deny but 
Mr. Martin had fome ground to fay, this is deci- 
five, i. e, as to its being acknowledged by Euckerir^t 
in the ^th Century. But, 

The Inftance being fingular, is indeed apt to 
raife fufpicion about it, yet I (hall not for thaS 
Reafon rejed it, but (hall offer fuch other Argu- 
ments, as will, I think, acquit me from the 
Charge of being influenced by mere Partiality, 
in judging it to be probably an Interpolation^ 
added by the Tranfcriber of Eucherivj, 

In general, the Learned know very well, that 
in the Copies and Editions, efpecially, of theL^- 
tin Fathers, fuch Interpolations of Texts arc fre- 
Guentj and were thought innocent : for when 

C 2 the 



* 



20 Jn Anfwer to Mr. Martin'^ 

theTranfcriber found a Text only referM to by 
his Author, he would fupply it at large, or per- 
haps redify it, by putting it in according to what 
was in his own Bible of another Age, which he 
thought mufl: be right. This was but natural; 
and I underftand this is the Cafe in a like Inftance 
yfi\l\\ Bede*% Comments on t\\Q SthFerfe'^ There are 
three that hear Record^ the Water^ Bloody and Spi' 
ritr for fo I am informed the Manufcripts of 
Bede\ Works have it, whereas in the printed Edi- 
tion, the Words in terra^ on Earthy are added to 
iTiake it agree to the current Verfions of After- 
Ages. So that if Eucherius had only faid. As to 
the Trinity St, John has [poke ft as in the Sth Verfe^ 
the Traofcriber finding in After-Ages the 7th 
Verfe alfo in his Bible, might join both, as ealily 
as he now would add Chapter and Ferfe : And 
thus an Alteration of a Text was the likelielt 
of all. 

But 'tis not enough to fay it might be fo, I (hall 
therefore offer my Reafons on which I judge it 
was fo here •, becaufe, 

Firfi^ It appears to be not very conflflent with 
Euch.de Evcherim himfelf elfewhere *, for in his Interpre- 
^"^^•^i^; tation of Fer. 8. or the Water, Blood, and Spi^ 
ca* v! &°"^^^' ^^ declares, that mofl did by a myftical Interpret 
n! T.* tation vnderfiand thereby the frinity, i. e. by the 
Water the Father^ &c. in which he feems entire- 
ly to acquiefce alfo ^ which is much what St.Cy- 
prian had faid before, according to Facundush 
Teftimony. Now 1 cannot imagine how to re- 
concile this with Eucheriush acknowledging the 
Words of the 7th Verfe *, for how could any, 
according to common Senfe, fet therafelves, by 
forced myftical Interpretations, to extort from 
the 8th Verfe fuch an unnatural Meaning, and 
make the Water^ Bloody and Spirit^ to mean 
Father-i Word^ and Spirit-, if they had read it 

directly 



Differ tation on i John 5. 7- ^^ 

dired^ly in the 7th Verfe already, that there are 
three in Heaven^ &:c. Father^ IVord^ and Spirit f 
Could they make the three Witnefles on Earth 
to be the fame which had juft before been cal- 
led the WitnefTes in Heaven ? Would they make 
the Six to be but Three Witnefles ? and the Apo- 
ftle to fay the fame thing twice over ? and after 
the mention of them by their proper Names, to 
mention 'em by ?w)/y?*c^/ Charaders, i.e. to fpeak 
of 'em darkly and enigmatically, after he had 
fpoken of 'em plainly ? One would think it not 
credible that Men (hould ufe fo much Force and 
Straining to fearch for the Trinity in the dark, 
if they had found it lie plainly before 'em, fo 
clofe and near to them. 

Secondly^ It appears that this Treatife of Euche^ 
rim de formuUs Spirit. &c, in particular was ia 
very great Diforder, and it feems the Copies 
were not alike ^ for Joannes Alexander Brajficanus^ 
in his Prefatory Epiftle, tells us, as I find it in the 
Bihliotheca Patrum^ that he took a great deal of 
pains, unto Wearinefs, in repurgandis & rcftituen^ 
dis^ &c. in leaving out and adding many things : 
id quod deerat adjecimus^ fays he. So that all 
things confidered, it is not improbable that this 
Pafl^age may be one of thofe Additions. To which 
I may fubjoin. 

Thirdly^ That this Text was not necefliary to 
his Defign, which (tho I will not fay he keeps 
ftridtly to it) was to infifl: upon myfiical Inter- 
pretations, like the Jewijh Cabala, under the fe- 
veral Numbers one, two, three, &c. which the 
^th Verfe did ferve him in. This appears in 
the Title of this Chapter, which is, ^ Of Num- * De nu- 
hers whofe Significations are allegoric ally explained : meris quo- 
whereas the 7th Verfe was not fubjec^ tcj iuch a rum figni- 
fecret figurative Interpretation. And according- f^^i'i^^^Q^i, 
ly in the beginning of his Work, he prays God trahuwurl 

C 3 to 



Jn Jnfwer to Mr. Martini 

to reveal the fecret abftrufe Senfe of the Scrip- 
tures, that he might produce what was their 
fecret Meaning. However, I fubmit thefe Rea- 
fons to the Judgment of the Impartial, who, 
1 think, will not wholly defpife 'em all : But 
flill it muft be remember'd, that if by any they 
be not thought fufficient to take off the Authori- 
ty of thisTeftimony, yet as 'tis the firft clear 
mention of this Text hj any Chn fit arj V^rit^r^ fo 
it was not till a good way in the 5?^ Century. 

And now there is nothing remains to be confi- 
dered, but what Evidence there is to be found 
from the Greek Manufcripts of the N. T. to au- 
thorise this Text : for it fignifies little that the 
jnodQxn Latin or Cr^f^ Churches have admitted 
it, unlefs they had Authority from the Greek 
Original for fo doings and therefore this Ar- 
ticle of the Greek Manufcrips is of greateft Im- 
portance in the Cafe. 

Mr. Martin in his 8th Chapter undertakes to 
fliew that this Text was found in the Greek Manu* 
fcrlpts of thefe lalt Ages, and fays i^o many thing? 
with fuch undaunted Confidence, and pofitive 
AiTurance (which a wife and cautious Man would 
not fay, unlefs he knew 'em to be true) that 
if it be found he has faid 'em without Truth and 
Evidence^ I think it will not gain his Work any 
Credit ia the end, tho it may ftagger the unlear- 
ned Reader at firll. He begins with a fine popular 
Huravgue upon the old Story of its having been 
in the original 6'rf^^ of St. Job f7, and thence paf- 
fed into xMtltdickVerfion^ and fo into St. Jeromes 
Mible^ and thtncQ into Char I e mat fih'^ for he fays, 
V/e mvft not doubt but the learned Men he employed 
in correcting the Bible^ had Greek Manufcrifts to 



^ Oremus Deum ut revelet abfcondita Scriptuiarum, &: profe- 
rajnus quoaiodo fecretiora intelledu fentiendum fit. ■ ' 

con" 



J)iffertation on i John 5, 7. 23 

eonfult. And indeed if we muft not doubt their 
having fuch Manufcripts^ nor that they exactly 
correded the L^itin by 'em in every Place that dif- 
fer'd, nor that they really put l\\hText in their 
Bibles, then the Work is done if we may doubt 
nothing-, but Mr. M^irtin knows thefe things are 
doubted, yea, and that fome^ or alloi them, are 
denyd^ and ftrongly o/jpo/f^ * and 'tis trifling, on 
no better grounds, to tell us we muft not doubt 
the principal Matters in debate. 

Next he argues from F. Simons faying, Tlois 
Taffage is in very few Greek Copies^ that therefore 
he grants it was in many \ which is no true Inference 
at all, becaufe Mr. Af^mw, but a few Pages after, 
cites him for faying the Text was not in any one 
Greek Manufcript ^ which he calls contradifiing 
.himfelf formally J and retraSling^ &c. but very ua- 
reafonably : for F. Simon having feen many Ma- 
nufcripts in which this Text was wanting, but 
not all that might be feen, might well pronounce . 
hereupon, that it was not in the greateft Part of 
W, and that it c^tainly was but in few^ tho 
he never intended hereby to fay it was in any. 
And when he had fearched more throughly, he 
then ventured to fay it was not in any one\ and 
therefore thofe vain Triumphs^ not to fay Infults, 
on that celebrated Scholar^ might have been better 
fpared than utter'd upon fo (lender, or rather no 
true Occafion. And if Mr. Martin were not 
willing to catch hold of any thing, he would ne- 
ver have made an Argument of fuch a poor pre- 
tended ConcelTionof F^Simon^ which he knew he 
difowned, or reftify'd. 

And now he comes to Particulars, i . He tells 
us, Laurentitu Falla^ in the i 5th Century, recovered 

f^ven Greek Manufcripts ^nd this Pajfage of Sr» 

John is found in all feven j and he thinks it is hard 
if none of them was then four or five hundred Tears 

C 4 old: 



24 '^'^ Jnftver to Mr. Martin'^ 

cld : but however he is fo modeft, as to let 'em 
be but three or four hundred Tears. And yet after 
all this f articular Account, given without mincing, 
or hefitating about it, I dare fay this Gentleman 
knows nothing of the Matter, but fpeaks all up- 
on Fancy and Guefs. If perhaps you imagine he 
has got i. y's Mmufcri^ts in his poffeflion, or at 
leaft, that he has feen 'em fully ^ he tells you no, 
not he, nor qny Man elfe that he knows of, has 
ChAp. II. either feen VaWd^s Manufcripts^ or knows what is be- 
come of ^ em* Is not this a pretty Account ? Dr. 
Pi-oleg. Jl/fill fays he had only three Greek Manufcripts, 
iJ« ic85. jyj[j.^ Martin fays feven. Erafmus fays, How Valla 
found or read fthis Place in St. John) does not fully 
appear *, Mr. Martin fays roundly, this Text was in 
all the feven \ and yet does not know any Author 
who fays he ever faw thefe ManufcriptSy nor pro- 
duces any Words of ralWs own, to prove that he 
faw this Text in them. 

Kext comes Cardinal Cajetan^ and what fays he 
^0 the Point ? Truly no more but that he doubted 
"whether this Verfe were in the Text *, becaufe, 
fays he, 'tis not in all the Greek Manufcripts, but 
only in fame '^ whence the Difference arifes^ 1 know not. 
This is much what F. Simon had faid, as 1 have ob- 
ferved before ^ he might not fee the Words in 
any Manufcripty but at that time never queftioned 
but they were in fome. 

Then for the Complutenfian Editors, Mr. Mar- 
tin fays boldly, that they put this Text in upon 
the warrant of one or rjjore Manufcripts (he can't 
tell which) and yet takes no notice of the Evi- 
dence given to the contrary in my former Tra^^ 
that they had it not where it was prefumed and 
pretended they had it. 

As for the Codex Britmnicus^ by which alone 
Erafmus ^diS influenced to put tht IVords into his 
^hird Edition ^ if Erafmus never fays he faw it, 

what 



'Dijfertation on \ John 5. 7. 2 j 

what (igniiies it to mention It- Simons faying it ? 
And therefore 'twas very unfair and unjuft to in- 
linuate that 1 had called in queftion the Veracity ofru^r, j, 
this learned Man^ two hundred Tears after his Deaths 
when I never once fufpeded his Teftimony ia 
the lealt, and only faid that I never found he 
gave any fach Teftimony. And is his Credit at- 
tainted, by not believing any groundlefs Story that 
others tell of him ? Cannot he be thought an honeft 
Man,if all that they fay of him fhould not be true ? 
Had that great Man, who was the Wonder and Glory 
of his Age, and who laid the Foundations for Af- 
ter-Ages to build upon, faid fuch a Word as that 
he had feen itj I had eafily relied upon his Since- 
rity ^ who, I conceive, was too great to ufe fuch 
FaKhood and Deceit. 

Indeed Mr. Martin thinks it enough to fay, 
*Tis not our Concern now to inquire what is become of 
this Manufcript^ or if any others have feen it be fides 

Erafmus and that this Method will introduce a 

new fort of Scepticifm in Matters of Learning, But 
with his leave, I think it docs concern us greatly 
to know whether fuch a Manufcript be in being 
ftill, which was too remarkable to be loft in Ob- 
fcurity, if it had once been taken notice of ^ and 
whether any one elfe ever faw it, fince 'tis contef- 
ted fo much whether t^^v Erafmtu faw it, ; or pre- 
tended to it. And I dare fay, fuch a pre fuming 
Credulity as Mr. Martin propounds for the Cure of 
Scepticifm, which would hinder a fevere Exami- 
nation into FaEls^ would do, and has done, the 
World far more harm than fuch Scepticifm it- 
felf j and the longer Men go on to take things fo 
on truft, the more grievous will the Scepticifm be 
at laft. 

Stephens^ Manufcripts are next in tale ^ but on 
what miftaken Grounds, will be further feen in 
the Review of the next Chapter. 

Ia 



26 An Jnjtvcr to Mr. MarcinV 

In the Year i 574, fays he, the Louvain "Divines 
in a Preface to their L^f/« Bible, fay they had 
feen this Paflage of St. John^ in many other Greek 
Maniifcrifts^ as Stephens had in his. As for Ste- 
fhensh Manufcripts, 'tis plain they only prefumed 
it from what appeared in his printed Edition*, 
but as to what they fay themfelves faw, I think 
Mr. Mim« is miftaken in interpreting it of any 
Greek Manufcripts : I fhall fet down their own 
Words, in which he has left out one material 
Sentence, which was both in the Latin^ and in 
V^SimorPsTranflation^ (with what Defign he beft 
knows :) fpeaking oijeromh Prologue^ "^ This^ fay 
they, confirms the reading of the Text, which is 
likervife fupported hy very many LMn Copies ^ agreea' 
ble to which Erafmus cites tws Greek Copies^ one of 
Britain, the other of Spain *, to that of Spain the 
Kmg^.s Bible is both in all other Places and in this 
conformable : (this lafl: Sentence Mr. Martin has 
omitted) we have feen many others which agree to 
tbefe. Now the word Thefe rather refers to the 
three laft Copies, one whereof, viz.. the King^s Bi- 
Printed at /,/f^ yvas a printed Copy, which fhews that they 
Antwerp, fp^^}^ Qf '^j^y Qopjes promifcuoufly ^ or it may re- 
*^^^' iate to the Latin Copies firft mentioned. But why 
fhould Mr. Martin pick out the middle Sentence 
only for the reference of thefe Words ? and by 
an unfair OmifTion reprefent it to his Reader as 
if ic were \.\i^* immediate Sentence before thefe 
Words of Reference, tout £ une fuite^ O'c ? He 
fays they are fpeaking of Greek Manufcripts of 
England^ &c. but are they not fpeaking alfo of 



^ Qiiod pro textus k^clione facit, 6c Latinomm libromm plu- 
rimi fuftiMgantur, quibus confentientes duos GrsEcos codices, u- 
num Biitannicum, alterimi Hlfpaniciim, Erafmus profert ; Hifpa- 
hico ut ubique & hie conformis eft Regius ; multQS alios his con- 
fonantes vidiiTius. 

hf^tin 



Dtffertatton on \ John 5. 7] ^T, 

X4f/« Copies, and of King PM/pV printed Bible .? 
and perhaps Stephens^ Manufcripts, which they 
inftance in immediately after, may be feme of the 
many which they f aw did fo agree to the other. But 
their own Account of them (hews how they faw 
'em, viZ' as they were mark'd in the praff^ Copy 
only ^ and therefore they make fome doubt whe- 
ther he had placed his Marks right according to 
his AUnufcripts *, nay 'tis plain that even the Copy 
of Spaifi^ which ErafntHs cites, -{- was only the 
Comflutenfian Edition^ and is what thefe Divines, 
I think, do intend here -, and not a Manufcript^ as 
Mr. Martin turns it. 

But I have now before me the New Teftament,' 
of thefe Louvain Divines, by Planting Amwerfiaz 
1584. with the 4ame Approbation of Molanpu 
annex'd as in the other Edition*, and in their 
Ivlotes on this Text^ their Words are fomething 
different, ^ viz. This confirms the reading of the Texty 
whereto agrees the Greek Complutenfian Edition^ ani 
what are taken from thence^ with many others which 
fve have fe en. And then follow the Words about 
Stephen^h Manufcripts^^s in the Other, but 'tis under 
the Title of the Parifian Copies. Now this,' 
which feems to be upon their fecond Thoughts, 
puts it out of doubt that they fpake . only of 
feeing feveral printed Editions of the Greek Copies 
befides that of Complutum^ but no Greek Manw 
fcript. And I think 'tis not againft common 
Senfe, as Mr. Martin pretends, to under ftand even 
the former Account fo, if 1 had not had this 



\ Eraf, in locum, Perlata eft ad nos editio Hifpanlenfis, 
Again^ Exemplar, ex eadem, ni fallor, Bibliotheca (Vaticana) 
petitum, fecuti funt Hifpani, 

* Quod pro textus leclione facit, cui Grxca Complutenfis E- 
ditio, ^ quae ex ea funt, cutn aliis quas vidimus non paucis, con- 
fonant. Inter omnes Parifienfium ne unus eft qui diifideat^ 6cc. 

'j- Utter 



8 "jn AnfxvcY to Mr. Martin'^ 

latter^ which makes it more plainly appear. So 
then hitherto no one is proved to have feen any 
ofje Greek Manufcrift for this Text, 

His next Evidence he calls, is F. Ameloty who, 
in his Note on this Text, fays, Erafmm faid it 
was wanting in one Greek Manufcript of the Fatican^ 
but I find it in the moft antient Manuscript of that . 
Library. Whether he found it by his own Search, 
or others Information, thefe Words do not fully 
determine. Nor does Erafmm only fay it was 
wanting in one Manufcript of the Vatican^ but in 
a mofi anti(nt Manufcript^ which he calls Codex per^ 
*vetuflm & Liber antiquijfimm : and fince we are well 
afTur'd^/;^ Text is wanting in the famous mofi antient 
Vatican Manufcript, by the conceflion of Dr. Mill^ 
and I think of all that have inqjjir'd into it, and 
particularly by -Caryophilvu \ and that upon a ftrid 
Search made by the Criticks, whom Fo^QVrban^ 
the 8 th employ 'd about it j Mr. Ameloth flightj^ 
Teftimony that it was in the mofi antient Manu*, 
fcript there, cannot be condftent with their more^ 
accurate and creditfle Witnefs. Indeed Mr. Du^ 
Tin fays Amelot was not very ^ exad \ and Father*, 
Simon upon feveral Occafions (hews how vainly her 
ufes to talk, f Father AmeUt^ fays he, does not 
feem to be fincerei^ when he fpeaks of his fearchingf 
cut of Manufcript s ^ and that he fpeaks of Manwl 
fcripts which were never extant but in his own Ima^l 
gination: and as to his having carefully fearche(t\ 
the Vatican Manufcripts, he fays, he cou*d not afjirni'' 
it J fince he produces no 'variom readings but fuch as are 
in print '^ and that he never faw, but in print, what 
he call'd feeing the Manufcripts. So that I think" 
we may fet this Witnefs afide. 



* Hlfl, o/Ganon of O. and N. Teft. Vol. 2. ch. 3. §. I- 
f Crit. HiJi.ofY^i^. of N, T, Ch. 32, and 33. 

His 



Tiijfertation on t John 5. 7. i§ 

His lafl: is a fort of Ear-Witnefs rather, viz. 
^tis faid there is alfo one (Manufcript) at Berlin in 
the Kinfs Library^ that is believed to be 500 Tears 
old. Father Long reports it on the Tefiimony ^/Sau- 
bertus and Tollius *, and Dr. Kettner^ on a Letter 
that he fays he received of it from M. Jablonski, &c* 
But Mr. Martin^ who makes the moft of every 
thing, does not quite venture to fay, that this 
Text is reported to be in that Manufcrift^ [tbo 
his Tranflator makes him fay fo ^ of which 1 will 
not take any advantage, becaufe I think he has 
done his Author fome wrong] but it has the face 
of fuch an artful Infinuation. Father Long fays 
only there is a Manufcript^ and refers to Saubert 
(whom I have not feen) and T*?////^, whom I have 
confulted ^ and \\c only tells us what fort of Book 
it is, viz.. written in great Letters, Literis un- 
cialibti4^ and without Accents, &c. but fays not 
one word of this Text in St. John : and if M. 
Jablonshh Letter has faid no more than thefe, 
what is this Manufcript mention'd for ? If there 
be a Manufcript at Berlin that wants this Verfe^ 
does this prove the Text to be genuine ? Or if 
Mr. Martin means, that we don't yet know what 
is in that Manufcript^ is that an Argument for 
us to conclude, that it is in it, contrary to all 
the other Greek Manufcripts that we know of ia 
the World ? Surely the Prefumption lies on the 
other fide j and this Gentleman cou'd fo eafily 
have gain'd Satisfadion from Berlin in this Point, 
that I fufped he was fearful there was no fuch 
Ferfe in this Manufcript ^ Or elfe he wou'd have 
come abroad well fortify'd with fuch an Authority : 
and if fo, 'twas not ingenuous to make fuch a 
deceitful Flourilh in fo ferioas an Argument. 
But if indeed it has the Text^ and we can be 
allured how the Cafe Hands upon that Manufcript, 
it will then deferve good Confideration, and be 

of 



JO An ^nfwer to Mr. Martin'^ 

of more weight than all the reft that he has 
ofFer'd : Till then, 'tis amufing the World with 
random Conjectures, and unfair Infinuations^ to 
tell 'em, they fay fome-body has written to 
fome-body, that there is a Greek Manufcrift which 
has in it we cannot tell what. 

But (ince my writing what relates to the Berlin 
Manufcrip^ I have receiv'd Information from a 
very fare Hand, that this Verfe is not in the Body 
of that Manufcript, but that it has been fince in- 
ferted in the Margin^ and the Manufcript is not 
above 300 Tears old neither. If Mr. Martin had 
known this, and conceal'd it ^ nay, if he could 
jtill not only inlinuate this Manufcrift to be in 
confirmation of his Argument, when it was di- 
redtly againft it ^ but alfo cou'd even venture to 
add this vain Triumph immediately upon it, We 
fee here Manufcrifts more than fuffcient to convince 
usy &c. (when yet he was driven to fuch hard 
Shifts, of pretending a falfe Authority to make 
out but one fuch Manufcrip .•) I fay, if he had 
known this,I (hou'd think it fuch an Imputation on 
his Sincerity in writing, that I cou'd not tell how 
to reconcile it to what he had faid at the Entrance 
of his Dijfertationj viz.- that he had learned from 
the Book of Job ^ 1 3* ?• That wefhould not talk deceit- 
fully for God. And if he did not know it,which I'll 
fuppofe, his offering it to the World at all adven- 
tures, with fuch an Airof Boafting, is nothing to 
the Reputation of his Difcretion ^ and will, I 
hope, convince him how unfit fuch a prefuming 
confident Imagination is, to be brought into an 
Inquiry of this nature. However, if he be ftill 
burdened with a fuperfluity of good Greek Ma* 
, nufcrifts^ having this Text^ I conceive they will 
all be taken off his Hands, and not one lefc 
him to turn to« 

And 



Dijfertation on i John 5. 7. fi 

And now upon a Survey of all hitherto faid, 
it appears that Mr. Martin has fcraped together 
all the things little and great, that he cou'd think 
of, that fo he might make a huge Heap and pom- 
pous Show of Numbers ^ and then with a popular 
Flourifli retails 'em out fingly, firft by thQ Names 
of the Authors who were mention'd about 'em ; 
F'allaj XimeneSy Erafmus^ Stephens^ and many other 
learned Men have feen ''em: then by their place, 
fome in France, fame in Spain, fome in England, 
and fome in the Netherlands : and after all this, 
fays he. Shall the Text not have been in the Greek 
M^nufcrips fti/U And he has the Courage to fay 
whati thinkisoneof theftrangeft things to befaid 
with fo great Aflurance, viz. IVe fee here^ fays 
he, more Manufcripts than there is need of^ to con^ 
vince la that this Text is not found only in a very 
few Manufcripts, nor only in fuch as are more mo- 
dern^ as Father Simon wou*d make m believe. What ! 
more than is needful ? and yet after all, not one ? 
How eafily are fome Men fatisfy'd ! 

In the laft place, we are come in his 9th Chap. 
to' Stephens^ Manufcripts, It has been (hown, 
that of all his fixteen Manufcripts^ (for fo many 
Dr. Mill had allowed befides the Complutenfian 
Copy, Troleg, ^^ ii7<^.) only feven had St. 
Johns Epifile'j and that all thefe are found to 
want this Ferfe^ tho, by miftake, Stephens^s Greek 
Edition has marked only the words, in Heazen^ 
l¥ Tti i^vo>^ to be wanting. Mr. Martin being fen- 
fible this preffes very hard, pretends to fet this 
Matter in a clearer Light than ever ^ and' un- 
dertakes to fliew that more than feven of Ste- 
phens^s Manufcripts had this Epifile^ and confe- 
quently had this Verfe^ for certainly they are not 
among thofe feven which are marked as wanting 
it. And he is forry to find that Mr. Roger ^Do^ov 
of Divinity at Bourges^ and writing in defence 

too 



3 ^ An Anfwer to Mr. Martin'^ 

too of the Text, has, after his flrid Examina- 
tion of Stefhensh G'rf^^Teltament (in which his 
Manufcripts are referred to) declared that he 
can find but [even belonging to this Epfile ^ and 
that not one of Stephens'/ Manufcripts had this 
Verfe ^ tho, fays Mr. Martin^ they have always 
been accounted a Bulwark thereof: and, he fays, 
Mr. Roger has not computed aright. 

But 1 am amazed to fee how weakly Mr. Mar- 
tin goes about the Proof of this great Difcovery ^ 
he mentions three more Manufcripts of Stephens^ 
as having this Epillle of St. John^ not before 
obferved \ thefe are marked //. /g. /r. i. e, 14. 15, 
16. and he proceeds ftill upon his accuftomed 
Topick of Prefumption: becaufe, forfooth, all 
theEpiftles oftheiV<?ii? TV/^w<?«f, viz. St. Paul% 
and the feven CathoUck, and the Revelation^ are 
wont fometimes, to make one Folume j therefore 
finding by Stephens^s Teftament that thefe Manu- 
fcripts had SU Paulas Epiftles before^ and the^^f- 
'u elation of Sx, John behind ^ he ftrenuouQy argues 
that the feven CathoUck Epiftles were furely in 
the middle. However, fince the Manvfcript 
mark'd t^* is referred to, upon 2 Tet. i . 4. which 
is one of thofe feven Catholick Epiftles, he doubts 
not but that Manufcript reach'd St. Johnh Epiftle 
alfo, and fays briskly, this makes ^/^k Manu- 
fcripts, 

But certainly Mr. Martin cannot be fo weak, 
to think this will pafs for a good and invincible 
Troof with Men of Senfe. Did he never fee aa 
old Bible which had beginning and end, and yet 
wanted fome parts between ? If he had read and 
confidered Dr. Mill^ he wou'd have found it fo 
here ^ that accurate Inquirer tells us often, with 
exaft nicety, what Books^ what Chapters^ and 
what Parts of a Chapter,: are wanting in feveral 
of the Manufcripts* And he tells us thefe three 

ri- were 



DiJJertation on i John 5. 7I 3 J 

were mutilated ; and as to the lafi^ /</*• he is fo 
particular, that he tells us this was a Copy of 
three Gofpels, Matthew^ Luke^ and Johriy but that 
at the end were Tn>o Leaves, in which was a part MillilPro-; 
of Ms Joth Chap, and the firft Chap, of the 2d l«g- N^-. 
Epiftle of Peter. One might hope fuch a great ^^It* 
Difappointment as this fhou'd take us off from „ ^5* 
prefuming and fancying, wheref^^/liefo crofs 
in the way. 

He brings Beza^ as one well acquainted, he 
thinks, with the matter, to confirm this Point, 
viz. That more than thofe noted feven Manufiripts 
of Stephens had St. Johns Epiftle in 'em, andcon- 
fequently this Verfe ^ becaufe he fays, this Verfe is 

in the Manufcripts of England and in fome of 

Stephens'^ antient Manufcripts. Yet I do not 
think it appears by all that Mr. Martin fays, 
but that Bez^a intended it of thofe aforefaid fe- 
ven Manuscripts^ which he, as well as others, ima- 
gined by ^r^pfofwi's Marks to have all but the words 
in Heaven '^ vfhich fmall Defeft might yet ' not 
hinder him from faying in general Terms, the 
Ferfe was there : And tho after he had faid ^^s 
Verfe is in fome of Stephens^s antient Manufcrifjs, 
he adds that the Words, in Heaven, are wanting 
in fcven Manufcripts j it does not follow that he 
diftinguiflies thefe feven from the fome Manu- 
fcripts before, but only that he expreffes the 
number of Manufcripts determinately, which be- 
fore he had exprelTed indefinitely and uncertainly : 
And what wonder is it, tho he did not exprefs 
himfelf fo accurately in a Matter he might be in 
fome Confufion about ? 

But fuppofing Bez.a did, as perhaps he raighf, 
imagine that fome other Manufcripts of Stephens 
ha'd this Verfe ^ this has been long thour^ht by o- 
thers, thro miftake, and why might aoc he mif- 
take as well as others? 

D For 



34 ^^ Anftver to Mr. MartiW 

For tho Mr. Martin reprefents Bez.4^ as having 
feen all Stephens'/ Manufcripts^ and compared ^em^ 
and that they were in his hands^ &c. and thence in- 
fers from Bez.a% Words, that the whole Verfe was 
in fome of 'em *, and afterwards argues, that in the 
refi of them only the %v ti^ v^.v(»^ in Heaven^ was 
waitings and that Stephens*^ Marks were not 
wrong plac'd •, becaufe Bez.a^ who would have 
obferv'dit, if he had found the contrary to either 
of thefe things, appears to confirm it all : yet 
I apprehend the very Foundation of his whole 
Argument is but a miftaken Prefumption j for 
it no way appears that ever BeTia had <?//, if any 
of Stephens^s Manufcripts, or that he had the Ma- 
nufcripts of the King^s Library to compare at all : 
and tho he ufes the Phrafes, Legimus^ & inveni^ 
mus in noftris ^ We read, and we find them^ &c. 
and compares them with the (fuppofedj British 
Copy ^ yet all this might well enough be, with- 
out reading 'em any where but in Stephens's own 
Notes and Colledions. 

And this is moft likely, if we confider the 
Cafe of Bcza. Henry Stephens^, the Son of Robert^ 
hicfifolleded the Readings of ten more Copiesy and 
written 'em into one of the New Teftaments of 
his Father''s fair Edition, which had already fo 
many various Readings noted in the Margin ^ this 
Ifeafure was put into Bezah hands, who being 
thus furnifhed, feems to have taken little or no fur- 
ther care to make any fearch of himfelf into thofe 
Copies or Manufcripts, nor perhaps ever to have 
feen 'em •, infomuch that Dr. Mill thought he had 
reafon to fay ^, That he took no care to fearch out 
what was the genuine Text j4nd when accidental" 

* N" 1258. ProUg, De hoc enim parum laborat, & ubi de 
Leftionis cujufpiam civ^ivria. forte agit, oft end it quam 4>ihil fere 
in his rebus viderit, vir alias eruditus 5c perfpicax. 



Dijfertation on \ John y. 7. 3J 

ly he treated of it^ he did hut Jljew how little or m* 
thing in a manner he faw into thofe Matters^ tho o^ 
therwife a learned andfagaciom Aian, How Mori' 
nus alfo blames him, may be feen in Dr. StilUngfleet 
on the Trinity y p. 159, &c. 

But there need no more Words about it, 
the Matter is determined before^ for if, as is al- 
ready proved, Stephens had not one Manufcript, of 
St. John^s Epiftle more than the feven which he 
had marked in the Margin, then to what pur- 
pofe does Mr. Martin make ado to force the con- 
trary out of Bez^ah Words ? viz^. that his fome 
Manufcripts were not of thofe fevenj i*e, were 
none of all he had. So that here is no News from 
Bez,a^ of any one Greek Manufcript which has all 
the Verfe \ for thefe feven^ he owns, want fome 
Words. And XqiMw Martin hold to it ever fo 
tenacioufly, or reafon ever fo finely upon it, 'tis 
either Bez^a fpeaks wrong, or himfelf by mifta- 
king him, argues fo, (ince'tis againft plain Fad. 

And therefore I judge Bez.a% Words can do hitn 
but very little fervice, in his loth Chapter, to juf- 
tify the Marks of Ste^hens\ Edition being rightly 
placed i it being what he probably never exami- 
ned into*, and Stephens himfelf might not have it 
fuggefted to him. It has already been faid and 
manifefted, that there is Proof of this Miftake ia 
thofe Marks^ from ocular Infpedion into feveral 
of thofe Greek Manufcnpts which are found to 
want the whole Verfe ^ but not one that wants 
only the Words in Heaven^ as the Semicircle is 
put in Stephens*s printed Edition. This Mr. Mar- See Full In: 
tin ought to have taken notice of, and then he q"'7* 
would have blufh'd to fay, in the Gonclufion of his 
Book, that his Oppofers aUedge nothing hut Reafo- 
nings without Proofs but that he efiahlifjes Fa^s -up^ 
on Teftimony \ and, that his Adverfaries argue 
from the Text's not being in the Vatican nor A- 

D 2 lexandrian 



36 An Anfwer to Mr. Martini 

lexandrianManufcrifts^ that therefore it was in none 
ofSffpfcf^j's.. No Sir, we argue, that becaufe 'tis not 
now round, nor any Rafure pretended, in any Ma» 
nufcripts, even not in thofe which Stephens had, 
that therefore it was not there formerly, and that 
the Semicircle was mifplaced : So that on our fide 
is the Proof from FaEl^ on yours from Reafonings 
againft it •, while you bring not one Manufcript in 
proof, nor one Witnefs that fays he faw fuch a 
one upon his own immediate Search. 

And I would know what made the Louvain Di- 
vines make the Doubt long. Whether the Semi- 
circle were in its due Place ? Surely they had fome 
reafon for fuch a particular Sufpicion. So that 
I think the Bufinefs of Stephens^ Manufcripts 
ftands as I put it before, and Mr. Martin has 
found no Evidence of any one Greek Manufcript 
here, which yet is his Ufl and chief Refuge ^ for 
as to his Codex Britamicus^ I think there needs 
no more be faid to it, than that Erafmm either 
never faw it, or however judged it to be corrupt- 
ed in this Place by fome modern Interpolation* 

Not is that any infuper able Difficulty which Mr. 
\Martin pretends, faying, that Stephens (hould at 
once have faid in the Margin^ hiAo-i^ &c. i.e. it 
was wanting in allj rather than faid, 'tis not in this, 
.'nor this, nor this, and fo of all the fevenManufcripts, 
if he had no more. Perhaps indeed that had been 
the (horter way ^ but who knows the Reafons of 
Mens Fancies, or why they chufe this or that way 
of expreiTing themfelves, when they are at their 
own liberty? Perhaps when Stephens hw moft of 
the Verfe in the Complutenfian Edition, and in 
that of Erafrnus^ he was loth bluntly to fay fo 
harihathing, as that he could find it in no Ma- 
nufcript, and fo might chufe to fay it more 
foftly, viz.. not in fuch and fuch: Ajid tho thefe 
indeed were all he had, yet this was not fo obvious 

to 



Dtffertation on i John 5. ^. 37; 

to be obrervedjby many, as the other had been, 
and therefore was lefsofrenfive. 

But it may be asked, whence then did Stephens 
take thefe Words^ fince he did put 'em into his 
Text ? Kef, 'Tis enough that we can anfwer in 
the Negative upon good Authority, that he bad 
'em not from any of his Gree\ Manufcri^ts^ and 
then 'tis no great matter where elfe he found 'em. 
Probably he took 'em, as he did the Words 
cjf TzSi^c^va^ from the Comflutenpan Edition \ only 
the latter part of the Verfe not being fo agreeable 
to the Latin Bibles, as 'twas in Erafmniy from his 
fuppofed Britijl: Greek Manufcript, he might pre- 
fer the reading of this latter, and take lut h t?«^ ii' 
«w, rather than the U Tf«$e/? td hiiai* 

Kor is it any fuch puzding Qyefiion as Mr. Adar- 
tin fancies, viz,. Why did Stephens obferve that ch. 10. 
the Complutenfian Edition hadlnToht i. e, agree in 
one^ as peculiar to it^ if the whole Verfe was fo, f I 
anfwer, none can fay the whole was peculiar to 
it, when the fuppofed Britijh Manufcript, and £- 
rafmm's Edition aifo had the reft of the Verfe \ 
and therefore this Part only was peculiar, and fo 
was fit to be obferved. 

Mr. Martin in Chap. 11. is fo over-critical in 
marking the Differences of the Codex Britannicus, 
and the Creek of the Council of Lateran^ that he 
obferves one confiderahle Difference to be «7b/ and 
T»7T/, when a very little Knowledge of tht Greek 
would fugged; that it was only an Erratum-^ pro- 
bably the Mark over the aTo/,5 a Circumflex with 
an Afpirate^ was placed fo as to be taken for a tau^ 
and a part of the Word. 

I cannot but remark one thing more in Mr. 
Martin % I ith Chapter: He tells us, The Complu- 
tenfian Edition does not teafhy as do all the others^ 
the Vnity of Ejfence in the three Perfons^ hut theVnity 
of their Tejlimony, But then 1 ask him and others, 

D 3 what 



^8 ^ Jn Jn/werto Mr. Martin'^ 

what they mean by fo often vouching this Au- 
thority ? If we grant ^em this^ then they will 
g^la a Text which does wor teach the Vnity of Ef- 
fence in the three Terfons^ but the contrary ^ and 
theriperhapsthey will throw it up again, and be 
as angry that we receive it, as they were before 
that we rejeded it. Let 'em tell us whether they 
think we fhou'd or (hou'd not admit it,or elfe let 'em 
never more urge us with the Com^lutenfian Copy. 

The two Teftimonies which Mr. Martin touches 
on in his 1 2th Chapter are amongft the fuppofi* 
titious Works afcribed to Athanafm, The firfty 
taken from the Synoffis Serif t. has been obferved 
to be no plain Evidence of any regard to this 
Text^ let the Author be who it will j and for the 
cfW. Author, Mx, Martin ^QQ^ not know but he 
was a Latin^ tho he thinks he poflibly might be a 
Cree\ : but of the 5th or 6th Century however^ 
which is not worth llriving about; finceitcan 
come but to this, that among the Multitude of 
Creek Writers, one, who poflibly might be Greeks 
feems to have fome relation to fuch a Text^ but 
all the reft are filent ^ and yet his Words ^i y^ 
will agree to the 8th ferfe^ by omitting C«0, as 
much as to the 7th by adding the Cta): fo that 
thisAnfwer will remain good againft all he has faid 
about the difference of the Latin and the Greeh 

His 13th C/;^prfr tells us, that f/7/i r'^r/^ is made 
life of in the Greek Churchy in her Confejfion of 
Faith^ Ritual^ and Leffons ^ which may eafily be, 
and yn be bat of late Date, if he cou'd fhew" 
us they had tt in their Offices in the Primitive 
Ages, 't'vere to the purpofe; but to fay any of 
their Offi^cs^ which from Age to Age have been 
fubjed to variations or additions, have it now, is 
to fay nothing: And to argue, that if they took 
it into the fuhlick Leffon^ (which is an antient part 
of the OiEcej it tnufi be becaufe they knew it^ was 



Dijferutm on \ John 5. 7- 39 

an omijfion^ and that it ought to he added '^ is juft the 
fame as to fay, whoever put it into the Bible, 
or any Greek Edition of the Kew Teftament, 
(which New 1 eftament is certainly a very old 
Book) did it becaufe they knew it was a defed, 
and that it ought to be added *, which they cou'd 
not have thought, if the Words had not been ia 
their Greek Bibles before, i. e. that it cou'd never 
have come in at all, if not at the firft Penning of 
St. John's Efifile. Which is a pretty fhort Ar- 
gument, but there needs no great Guard againfb 
Its Force, by them who believe an Addition or 
Alteration to be no impoffible thing. Let Mr. 
Martin prove this^ and he will carry his Point 
indeed, by Reafon^ which he feems not fo likely 
to do, by Evidence of Fa^» 

1 come now to confider briefly his Evafions of 
the Arguments againft this ^exty which he calls 
Objedions, in his Second Party viz. 

1 . The Greek Manufcripts have not M Text •, ^^^ ^^ 
but then, Y^^sh^^ they want fome other Texts alfo^ 
"vhkh yet are Genuine, Refp. Some Manufcripts 
may want one Text, and others another *, but is 
there one Text of good Authority which they 

a/i want ? for fo the Cafe is here. 

2. The Councils of Nice and Sardica mention it ^|^^ j. 
not : bat it w^as, fays he, Chap. 2. becaufe they had 

no com efl about the Trinity^ but only the Deity of the 
Son, Refp, Very good ! But was not this Text as 
much to the purpofe for the Son^s Deity, as for 
the Holy Spirit^Sy or as for the Deity of all the 
three Perfons ? Is not the Son one of the Trinity ? 
and wou'd not a Text that (hou'd be thought to 
prove Father y Sony and Spirit to be one God, 
prove as ftrongly, that the Father and Son are one ? 
Was it not on all fuch occafions as good a Proof 
as that Text, / and my Father are one / 

4- 3- The 



){0 'An Anfwer to Mr. MartinV 

3. The Greek Fathers did not mention it ; but 
yet it might:, he thinks, have been in fome other, of 
their Writings., which are loft ^ as the Text of hap* 
fizzing in the Name of the Fat her ^ the Son, and the 
Spirit (and fome others) is not vfed by- ^em in 

Ch '^. y^'^^ Treatifes where it was proper. Refp, What 
* ^* is this to our Cafe, where the Words are 
not omitted in one part, and found in another, or 
by one Writer, but found in other Greek Writers 
of his Age *, but are omitted in all the genuine 
Works of all the Greek Writers of fo many 
Hundred Years that have remained ? 'Tis a hard 
Prefumption indeed to imagine it fhou'd be in 
a great many lolt Writings, and not preferved in. 
one of the many we have, to which they were fo 
pertinent. As for the Latin Writers, they are: 
accounted for in my Inquiry. 

4. The Fathers who mention the 8th Ferfe^ 

Ch. 4. ^^^ y^^ "^^ ^^^ 7^^^' ^^y^ ^^» ^^^ °^h ^^^^^ 

fion for the one , and the other was not proper 
to their purpofe. Ref It might indeed happen fo 
in fome Inftances, but not in all. Not in Cyril^ 
who had plainly more occa (Ion for the 7th Ferfe 
than for the 8th, in order to prove the Holy 
Spirit God., or to have the Name of God. I appeal 
to any Man, if the 7th Ferfe be not more likely 
to anfwer that purpofe than theWater, Blood, arid 
Spirit, &c. Not in Avguftin, for he diredly want- 
ed fuch a Text to prove his point, viz. That where 
Two or more are faid in Scripture to be One, they are 
not different, hut the fame thing', nothing cou'd j^ 
have hit his Fancy better, if it had been knowa t 
to him. Kot in F^cMw^wj furely, who urged the 
8th Fer, for proof of the Trinity, but not the 7th. 
Mr. Martin fays, he ought to have ftuck to this lafi. 
But 'tis certain he did not ^ and for what rea- 
fon but this, that he knew not of any fuch Text ? 
And alfo that the ^/nV^« Biftiops, by ufing the 

4. Tefti. 



Differtntion on i John 5.7. 41 

Teftimony of St. John for the Father^ Word^ and 
Spirit's being one, intended it only, as he exprefly 
fays St. Cyprian did intend it, of the myftical In- 
terpretation of the 8th rerfe. So that this Ex- 
cufe will not do. 

Befides, had they never any occalion for the 7th 
Ferfe f Cou'd they find no opportunity for bring- 
ing in this, one of the moft excellent Tajfages of tht 
whole Scripture^ as Mr. Martin calls it, before he 
has proved it to be any part at all ? Where arc 
tbefe Inftances? What, not once in all St. Au- 
^ufiineh ten large Tomes I Again, had not fuch 
a Commentator on St. John\ Epftle^ as Bede^ 
(the moft learned Man perhaps in the 8th Cen- 
turyj the fame occafion for the 7th />^fr/*^, viz.. to 
comment upon it, if it had lain in his way as 
the other did ? Which was all the Occafion he 
wanted, that I know of. Therefore Mr. i^^m» 
adds in his '^xhChap. 

5. Commentators havq always been at liberty to ex" 
found only what Faffages they pleased* Refp. True, 
they are fo, for none can compel 'em ^ but I think 
Men are not wont to ufe their Liberty in this 
manner without fome Reafon, and againft Reafon, 
and the World's Expedation^ or without fomc 
Apology for it,efpecially in fo remarkable a Text. 
Oecumenitu had no reafon to omit it, and Bede as 
little. Chryfoftom indeed might omit or pafs over 
one Sentence that was eafy and plain, or of fmaller 
importance, or that often occurr'd, or the like; 
and fo another might do by others : But how- 
comes it that both Oecumenim and Bede fliou'd 
agree to omit this fame Text fo very remarkable? 
Or is there one old Commentator that ever did 
obferve the Words ? 

But Mr. Martin objeds, Oecumenim and Bede 
knew it to he a Text received by fome \ and fo had 
as much reafon to fay fomething to it, tho they 

had 



42 An J^nfwer to Mr. Martin'^ 

had not own'd it, and yet are quite fiient,againn: 
all reafoa that we can give. Refp. This is pre- 
fuming what is not granted ; for Oecumemm be- 
ing a Greek Writer, cou'd probably have no 
manner of occafion to fpeak of it : forafmuch 
as this Paflage does not appear to have been in 
one Greek Manufcript of the New Teftament to 
his time, nor mention'd by one genuine and 
known Greek Writer, what Reafon cou'd he have 
to fay any thing about a Matter that had never 
been in being ? Surely it mull have been by a ^ 
Spirit of Prophecy ^ for Mr. Martin has not (hewn 
: it was in 5r.John'j Epiftle in Oecumenius'j time^ 
he has only p/^ it^ and it had been ftrange if he 
had mark'd a Text which he had never feen. 

As for Bede^ the Words might begin perhaps 
to be taken into fome private Latin Copies before 
his time, in Africa or other remote places •, yet 
probably he had never feen or known it : and not 
having it in his Latin, nor in the Greek Copies, 
what reafon had he to take notice of it ? Mr. i 
Martin makes a vain Suppofition, that Bede found 
bis Latin Copy had if, and that if his Greek 
wanted it, he fhou'd not have failed to take no- 
tice of it ; whereas no fuch thing appears, but 
rather both wanted it. As for Bedeh knowing 
that Cyprian^ FiBor Fit. and Fulgentius had cited 
thefe Words^ this is but a precarious Suppofition 
neither ^ for if this was judged to be only their 
myftical Interpretation of the 8th Ferfe^ then 
Bede had nothing to fay of itv as of another Text 
by it felf. 

And indeed, if he had known the Words of 
St. Cyprian^ and of the African Bifhops, &c. 
(which yet does not appear) and had taken 'enl 
to refer to a direEi Text m St. John^ yet if he 
knew of no fuch Text^ how cou'd he tell where 
to infert it ? Or where to take notice of it? 

whe- 



Dijfertation on i John 5. 7. j v 

whether in St. Johns Go/pel ot EptftU ? Therefore 
it were no wonder he ihou'd not mention fach a 
loofe uncertain Matter in St.Cypriaft. But it had 
been ftrange indeed, if finding the Text in his 
Bible, he ftiou'd omit to comment on that in 
courfe, wher\ yet he commented on the relt round 
about it, before and behind. 

So that I think thcfe Apologies and Exrcufes arc 
too thin and weak to pafs in the World : but the 
belt of it is, the Fathers need 'em not, in my 
Opinion •, becaufe they had a much more fubftan- 
tial Reafon for not mentioning f/;<r/^ Wordsf it thty 
never found ^ em in their Bible, V^A •<VA^ £ / 

And now 1 muft leave it to the judicious and 
candid Readers to confider, whether Mr. Martin 
had good reafon to go off with fo much Oftenta- 
tion and Opinion of his Performance. On the 
opfofite Part, fays he, we have nothing hut Reafonings 
without Proofs \ on ourSy evident Proofs and Rea* 
fonings vpon '^w. We fettle a Matter of FaEl oft 
pofitive Teftimonies of Witneffes^ without ambiguity^ 
without exception : they alledge dumb Witnejfes that 
can\ fpeak by Signs^ •^-^Manufcripts that have not the 
Text \ Writers who have not quoted.it. 

Where are thefe FaBs ? thefe pofitive Proofs^ 
againfi which nothing can be faid ? What! 1 fup-» 
pofe the Berlin Manufcript of 500 Years old ? 
and all above the feven Manufcripts of Stephens^ 
which had this Epiftle ? And where are they ? 
Bring forth your Witnejfes ', I doubt they can^t fpeak 
fo much as by Signs^ for there is not any Sign of 
'em that I can fee. And Ifuppofe Jerom\ Preface, 
and the Briti^ invifible Manufcript; &c. here are 
Fads indeed alledged, but they are only fuppofed 
Fadh that want confirmation. 

The moft plaufible Witnefs is St. Cyprian^v^hich 
yet is not fo plain, but that much is very reafonably 
faid to Ihew he fpake of another Text* 

They 



ij.^, An Anfwer] 8ccl 

iTjey have dumb Witneffes^ — Manufcrifts that have 
not the Text^ fays he. Bat are not negative Proofs 
proper to make out a Negative ? If one obtrude 
fome new Text in print, or a Mahometan fhou'd 
urge a Text of our Lord's (as is pretended) fpeak- 
ing of Mahomet by Name, or a^^xauVo?*, mult not 
negative Witnefies confute it, by fihiewing *tis 
not fo in any GreeJi Manufcrip Copy^ nor men- 
tion'd in any genuine Greek Writer for many 
hundred Years ? nor pretended to by any Favou- 
rers of Mahomet in the firit fetting up their Re- 
ligion ? And have we not all this Evidence a- 
^dxiA this Verfe f If I produce a blank Paper, does 
not it prove there is no writing in it, only be- 
canfe Wsjtlent and can*t fpeak .? 

To conclude, if it be fo in faB^ I hope 'tis no 
faulty Pofitivenefs or Confidence to fay it, viz. 
That there is not one old Greek Manufcrift of 
the New Teftament, written before Printing, yet 
known of to the World, which warrants this 
Text for genuine, tho there be a huge Number 
which all want it. So that I hope no candid Man 
will fay I am immodeft in pronounciug it doubt- 
ful, or that I wou'd not receive it, which I am 
fure I wou^d, if I had fufficient Evidence that 
ever St. John had deliver'* d it to the Saints. 



FINIS. 



A N 



EXAMINATION 

O F 

Mr. £;////;z's ANSWER 

T O T H E 

DISSERTATION 

UPON 

The Seventh Verfe of the Fifth Chapter of the 
Firft Epiftle of St. John, 

For there are three that bear record hi 
Heaven^ the Father^ the IVord^ and 
the Holy Ghofi : and thefe three are 
one. 



By Mr. MARTIN, Paftor o'i xht French 
Church at Utrecht. 



Tranflatcd from the French, 



LONDON: 

Printed for W. and J. Innys at the Prince'^ 
Arms at the Weft End of Sc. 'Paurs Church- 
yard. 171P. 




THE 

PREFACE. 



Could not have believ'd, that my 
T^'iffertation upon the celebrated 
Tafage in St. John's frjt Epijlle, 
There are Three that bear Re- 
cord in Heaven, ^c. Jhould have 
drawn from behind the Curtain the Englifli Au- 
thor^ who^ in writing againjt this Tajfage^ had 
conceaVd his Kame. I had found him in my 
IVay^ when I undertook to defend the Authen- 
tic knefs offo confiderable a Text as that isj in 
proof of the T)ohrine of the Trinity^ and as I 
went along:, removed the particular Miflakes 
that were chargeable upon that namelefs IVri* 
ter. As he had almoft done nothing elfe but 
copy after F. Simon, / did not think my felf 
obliged in my Anfwcr to follow himflri^ly^ and 
keep pace with him upon every Article. How- 
ever^ he has imagin'dy that his own Intereftj 
and more efpe daily that of the Caufe for which 
he feems extremely jealous^ wouldn't allow him 
to let the Tranflation^ which had been made 
into his own Tongue^ of a TDijfertation fo dif 
agreeable to himpafs i7i Silence. Hefaw (if 

A i / may 



The PREFACE. 

/ may be allowed to fay it) the Approbation 
of the Public k was on my fide^ and the Work 
ejleem'd far beyond what I could have expect- 
ed from the little Learning that was difpers'd 
in it. But the Force of Truth fupflyd what 
might have efcap'd my Attention or Enquiry^ 
and the Evidence which that bore along with 
it, cans' d it to Jhine in Tublick thro' all the 
Clouds which had there overfpread it. The 
anonymous Englifli TraB upon this SubjeB^ 
which came abroad under the Title ofK Full 
Enquiry into the Original Authority of the 
Text of St. Johnj was particularly defign'd to 
render its Authenticknefs fufpeBed., and to 
fiir up the Bijhops and Clergy of England to 
decree in Convocation.^ That for the futttrcj 
thefe Words of the jth Verfe Jhould be no lon- 
ger inferted into the Editions of the Epijile. 
The Wifdom and Tiety of the Bijhops and Cler- 
gy were not mov'd with his loud Exclama- 
tions., and the Convocation prudently dropt the 
Affair. The T^ifcotirfe prov' d unfiiccefsfuL 

— — Telumque imbelle fine idu 
Conjecit. 



Biit Jiotwithftanding this ill Succefs^ the 
namelefs TraEi has at length found its Attthor., 
who had cafi it into the Worlds like an Infant 
expos' dj zvithout a Tarent : However^ 'tis 
now own'd and fathered by one Mr. Emlyn ; 
that's all we know of the Matter. 

The Title he has p leas' d toi give his Anfwer 
would if form us a great deahnore.^ if the Ter- 

formance 



The PREFACE. 

formance anfwer'd up to it\ An Anfwer, fays 
he^ to Mr. AT^r/i/^'s Critical DiHcrtation, fhew- 
ing the Inllifficiency of his Proofs, and the Er- 
rors of his Suppoficions. If at every turn to 
repeat the Words fine Suppoficions, (mooth 
Turns, and fuch like^ with fometmes an ex- 
travagant Imagination, amounted to TDemonjira- 
tion^ Mr. Emlyn would foon compafs his End-^ 
hnt fomething more than this ts requWd^ and 
what more he has faid^ I hope to jhew in my 
Examination he has no Reafon to he fond of 

He has done me the Honour^ in his Preface, 
to fay^ That my T)iifertation is wrote with 
Decency, and the Civility of a Gentleman ; httt 
perhaps I a?n indebted for this Complement to 
his T>efigu of giving a quite different Character 
to a certain ^reacher^ again ft whom he bitterly 
complains : For the Obligation I owe Mr. Em-, 
lyn for the favourable Opinion he has of my 
manner of Writings is highly abated by the 
Judgment he has pafs'd upon the T>2fpofition 
of my Hearty in refpe^ to the Tajfages of ho- 
ly Scripture^ wherein I had faid we might find 
fitfficient Troof of the Trinity^ tho' the Text 
of the three JVitncffes in Heaven was want- 
ing ; which yet, fays he ^ [peaking ofme^ I ap- 
prehend he has lome Diftruft of. If his Ap- 
prehenfion proceeds from the Inter eft he has iti 
this Affair-i from an Orthodox Zeal for the 
T>o&rine of the Trinity, and an Opinion of 
my want of Capacity to defend the Truth of 
that heavenly "Doctrine againft an Arian, or 
fuch other Heretick^ I commend him for fo no- 
ble 



The PREFACE. 

ble a Fear ; but if he imagines I have a Tii- 
ftruft of finding in Scripture divers other Places 
which prove the Trinity^ that is taught in this 
Taffage of St. John j* Epiftle^ Imujt beg leave 
to asky IVhence he has borrowed fuch Sufpi- 
cions or Apprehenfions concerning me ? Has 
he found in my "Differ t at ion^ or in my Notes 
upon the Old and New Tejtamenty or^ in fhort^ 
in any other of my Writings^ the leaf Ground 
for him to fay^ That he apprehends I have fome 
Diftrufl-, whether there be feveral other V laces 
in Scripture to the fame Turpofe ? Mr. Emlyn 
is as little acquainted with my Writings^ as 
the Grounds of my Heart ; and I can ajfure 
him^ that if the Difccurfe of Reveal'd Religion, 
which I have jufi publijh'd as a Sequel to my 
Difcourfe of Natural Religion, comes to his 
Hands, he will there fee the facred T>oEirine of 
the Trinity fupported by more Texts of Scrips 
ture^ and with more Precifenefs and Force, 
than an Arian or Socinian would defire to fee. 
But we've faid enough by way of Prelude ; 
let us now come to the Examination of the 
Anfwer^ and fee if Mr. Emlyn has fo well 
fucceededj as to convince me of the pretended 
Infufficiency of my Troofs^ and to jhew, that 
they are only vain Suppofitions, as he has af- 
fumingly given out in his Title-Tage. 



AN 




EXAMINATION 

O F 

Mr. EmJyns ANSWER 

TO THE 

Critical Dissertation 

On the 

Seventh Verfe of the Fifth Chapter of 
St. John's Epiftle, There are three that 
hear record tn Heaven^ &c. 

j^v^^v^^/^^x'-^r/^^r^ fyiTAf!\f'\f'Afyi f'\fyiW'.'i\^yiT<i^^''i ^^'^<^-'y:^-<^.^-u^-u^-'^ 
VJi^/j!y/^7j.*<H^^/Ji Vj^7j^7ji^/^vj?/A ^/^vA^/;^^/:A^:A^;^ ^^^^-Cj^k^JklLI 

Chap. I, 

Wherein Ftrfl, the Cafe htrulyftated', and 

Secondly, 'tis Jhewn of what Nature 

the Proofs ought to be, whereon the 

Decifton of this Affair entirely depends. 

E T us begin with repeating the Paf- 
fage which is the Subjed of this X^ii'^^ 
pute : For there are three^ fays the 
Apoftle, who hear record in Hea'ven^ 
the^ Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Sprit, and thefe three are one. As the 
Teftimony St. John here fpcaks of, to wit, that 
Jefus 1% the Mejiah and Son of God, is not given 

in 




(^ ) 

in Heaven^ bccaufe that in heaven there is no need of 
this teilimony 5 theie words, in the place they (land, 
muft be lookt on as one of the ordinary tranfpofiti- 
ons in all languages, efpecially the ancient. Of this 
the Hebrew Text of the Oldfeftament^ and the Greek 
of the New^ afford us a vail number of examples 5 
but 'tis a thing fowell knov^n amongil men of Let- 
ters, that 'twill be needlefs here to produce any. I 
ihall only obferve, that the tranipofition of thefe 
words in Hea'ven is not by much fo fenfible in the 
Greek Phrafe of the Text, as in that of our modern 
Verfions •, as thofe who underiland that language 
may eafily difcern. The words then in their natural 
order would fland thus: For there are three in Heaven 
that hare record^ the Father^ the J/Vord^ and the Holy 
Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. Socinus has allow'd 
the fame thing in his Comment upon the Epillie, 
wherein this Text is found. 

We don't here enquire into the whole fublime and 
profound meaning couch'd under thefe words before 
us 5 we fuppofe, with the univerfal, ancient Church, 
that they contain the do6frine of the Trinity of Per- 
fons in the Godhead therein nam'd, the Father^ the 
IFord^ or the Son, and the Floly GhofK Mr. Emiyn 
fays, he is fatisfy'd they are as favourable to the 
Avians^ as to any. But I know not whence he 
has learn'd, that the Arians ever bcliev'd the Holy 
Ghofl to be a perfon really fubfifting, as it muft be 
in order to be a third witnefs \ nor do I fee that the 
^m;^j ever anfwer'd the Orthodox, vt'ho urg'd this 
pailage as a proof of the Trinity, that the words 
made nothing againft'em. What has led Mr. Em- 
lyn into this miftake is, that in the paflage of St. John^ 
he has confider'd only the lall words, and thefe three 
are one-^ which the Arians might poffibly underftand 
of an Unity of Confentand Teftimony, in like man- 
ner as they interpret thofe words of Jefus ChriB^ 
in the loth Chap, of St. John's Gofpel, I and my 

father 



fctfber are one. Whether then the Aridns i-night 
elude the force of this paiTage, by confining it to a 
mere moral Unity or Unity of teltimony, is noc 
my bufinefs at prcfent to enquire : that which is 
here evident and inconteftable, is a Trinity oF per- 
fons exprefs'd in thcfe words, the Father^ the IVord^ 
and the Holy Ghoft : In this refpedl the Text is clcar^ 
and Mr. Emlyn was too eafily fatisfy'd, when he 
faid, he was fully perluaded * that the zvords^ if 
genu'me^ 'were as fa'vourable to thofe calPd Arians, as 
to any. His miftake is carried yet farther, and Cal'- 
'uin and Beza are introduc'd, as having the fame Sen-* 
timents with him : And therefore^{zys he, Calvin rf;;^ 
Beza declare^ that 'tis not Unity of Being is here Jpo- 
ken of^ but Unity of confent and teflimony. Cahm 
and Beza have given this explication to the laftciuufe 
of the verfe only, whereas 'tis of the whole Text 
Mr. Emlyn has faid, that 'tis as favourable to the 
Arians^ as to thofe who believe the Trinity. Calvir^ 
has taken it in this fame Text for the Foundation of 
the Doctrine it contains, which isthatof the BleiTed 
Trinity, and adds, that the lad words, the fe three are 
one^ don't relate to the ejjence^ but rather to confent / 
which is not abfolutely to deny, that the unity of £f- 
fence is included in them, but to fay only, that we 
ought rather to underiland 'em of the Unity of TelH-* 
mony, than the Unity of Being. Beza has fpokcn in r hc 
fame manner > I'hefe three are one^ lays he, ivith re* 
regard to ejfence > but the exprejfton here feems to re* 
fpeut the Unity of tejlimony. When an Artan fliall 
make the fame remarks upon the paflage of St. 'fchn^ 
which Calvin and Beza have done, he will ccale to 
be an Arian : The truth of the paflage as to the 
main of the Dodrine we find in it^ receives thence 
no confidenible harm -, and the truth of the fad, to 
wit, that this paflag'c is St. John's^ is there entirely 



B .tnaiiKsin*4 



<4) 

maintained, and altogether as I have defended it in 
my Difcourfe. 

This latter is properly the point now in difpute be- 
twixt Mr. Emlyn and my felf 5 'tis a quellion of 
fad. Now a hdc can't be prov'd by mere fpecula- 
tive reafonings, which at befl can be but fpeciousj 
what we call proofs of faSl^ mud be urg'd withal j 
/. e. hdis which are clear and diilind, and which by 
the natural relation they bear to the fad in queltion, 
demonilrate its truth. A fad admits of the fame 
proof at the bar, and within the jurifdidion of right 
reafon. But from thence, that they are fads which 
ferve to prove another fad, 'tis evident that 1^"=, 
themfelves ought robe of fuch a nature, as not to be 
conteflcd 5 and, "^x , that their connexion with 
the fad they are brought to prove, be fuch as nccef- 
farily to carry along with it the fad in difpute 5 fo 
that the one being clear to the underllanding, the 
other muil be dilcern'd at the fame time. Logicians 
cxprefs this by the following maxim, which is foun- 
ded in right reafon, That the concliifion muft be wholly 
drawn from the premises. 

Upon thefe principles, and fome others of this 
nature, the truth oF a fad related by an Hiftorian 
cannot ju(tly be rejeded^, under pretence that ano- 
ther Hiltorian, contemporary with the former, or 
fomewhat more modern, has made no mention of it 5 
HO more than the depoiition of divers perfons, who 
Ihall fay they have not feen fome particular thing, 
will avail againll the truth of that fad, provided 
that fcvtral other perfons, againil whofe tefiimony 
nothing can be alledg'd, give witnefs to it. All that 
can reafonably follow from thefe diflferences, what- 
foever they be, are doubts and fufpicions j and the 
moil nice judgment can require no more in fuch a 
cafe, than that welhould examine well the proofs of 
the fi6t, fift 'era thoroughly on all fides, and if we 
find there no ihadow of falihood or inconiiltency 

with 



( r ) 

with the nature of the thing they are brought to 
prove, we ihould no longer doubt of its truth. 

To apply thefe genei-al reflcdions to our particular 
fubjea, 'tis firft of all agreed on both hands, that 
the order or connexion of this Text, with what 
goes before, and follows after it, is not conclufive 
either for or againft its authenticknefs. For befides 
that it very much depends upon the fancy or parti- 
cular prejudice of an Interpreter, to difcern or not 
difcern the connexion of a context, as Mr. Emiyn 
has well obferv'd ; 'twould be withal to make that 
fort ofparalogifm Vh\\o^oY>htvsc'<i\\ begging the que ft ion ^ 
which confilts in taking that for granted which 
is the point in difpute. Thofe who find there a 
coherence , fuppofe the pafTage was originally 
St. John's^ and thofe who find it not, fuppofe the 
contrary. When then I faid in my DiJJertation^ 
that the words ha've a perfect connexion with what 
goes before 'em^ and follows after \m^ I faid not, as 
Mr. Emlyn has wrongfully advanc'd againft me, that 
this was a proof the Text was genuine 5 I only 
faid, it was an advantage fomewhat worthy of no- 
tice. Mr. Emlyn is not ignorant, that thofe who 
embrace the fame fentiments with him againft the 
pafiagc, don't fail to obferve, that it breaks tl?e con- 
nexion of St. John's words : Slitchtingius^ a fam'd 
Socinian^ has borrow'd. thence an argument againft 
it j and Mr. Emlyn has made the fame remark in this 
Enquiry : Let me fir ft obferve^ ^fays he, that the Text 
it [elf ^ and Context^ have no internal evidence to per- 
fuade us that the words are genuine^ — the Context with- 
out \m is rather more fmooth and eafy. Why then 
does he find fault with me for having alledg'd the 
connexion as a fecund advantage the Text has } 

Secondly, As a mere omillion cannot be proof 
againft a fad attefted by, real and pofitive proofs, as I 

■ Pa^e 4. 

B z have 



have obferv'd, it follows from hence, that other 
proofs muft be brought befides thofe of the ©miffi^ 
on of the paflagc in St. yohn's Epiftle, in fome 
MSS. Greek or Latln^ and in the Writings of fome 
ancient Fathers of the Church, to takeoff from the 
force of the quotations which divers have made of 
ir, and of the other MSS. both Latin and Greek j 
wherein 'tis found. To give the llrength of an ar- 
gument to this obje6lion, the omiflion mull either 
be general, and extend it feh^ to all the MSS. of 
the New T^eftament^ and ail the Writings of the an- 
cient Fathers -, or, if it can reach only to fome par- 
ticular ones, 'tis requifitethat ancient teilmionies can 
be produc'd, from whence it may appear, that 'twas 
anciently look'd on as an interpolation in St. John's 
EpilHe, and that the quotation made of it by divers 
Writers of antiquity was difapprov'd •, but 'twill 
never be fhewn, that this was ever obje61:ed againft 
the pafTage. I had faid, this was a third advantage 
in behalf of its authenticknefs 5 Mr. Emiyn has not 
dar'd wholly to difavow it, but that his caufe might 
not be over-born by it, he has attempted to evade 
the blow, by faying, that it had been indeed ilrange, 
if this Text had been really known : but as no per- 
fon had ever feen or heard of it, 'tis unreafonable to 
demand why no one made a difpute about it. 

This anfwer would be jull, if it was not founded 
on two falfe Suppofitions 3 the firft, that this Text 
was never in any Greek or Latin MS. and never pub- 
lickly urg'dby Ecclefiaftical Writer»5 a Suppofition 
wholly extravagant, as I have made good from the 
clearell evidence, againfl the brightnefs of which 
Mr. Emiyn won't be able to (land 3 for I fliall Hiew 
that his obje6i:ions ugainll it have not the leaii: appea- 
rance of reafon. 

The other Suppofition, by means whereof he has 
thought to efcape, is, that this Text not being 
foundj according to himgin one fole Writer, who hv'd 
•'; . before 



(7) 

before the Fifth Century, we ought to look upon all 
that has happened witli regard to this Text fince the 
fourth Century, as an Innovation which had crepe 
into the Bibles of fome private perfons, and after- 
wards multiply'd among fuch fort of Manufcripts in 
the Ages of darknefs and confufion. We muftown, 
that Mr. Emlyn^ in this a juI]: imitator of Mr. Simon^ 
has a wonderful knack of imagining things to be as 
he would have 'cm ; for who ever was capable of 
joining fuch inventions together, in order to oppofe 
'cm againlf the folidity of a reafoning fo true \n its 
principle, and fo jull: in its confequence, as is that 
which I have faid to be the third advantage the paflage 
of St. John has in proof its authority ? Mr. Emlyn 
charges me with ufing ^n^ and fpecious fuppofitions, 
in (lead of real and fublfancial proofs ^ and what he 
afcribcs to me extraordinary, in point of artifice, fo 
much he takes away from the folidity of my reafon- 
ing : 7'he compenfation is not juft, I urge proofs 
of fa6ls only, and from them I deduce all my reafon- 
ings, in order to fet 'em in their true light, and dif- 
play 'em in their full force and llrength : This is all 
the artifice I have us'd, and 1 fhould be very forry to 
have any other. 

I laid down for the firft fa6i:, ^ that the pafTage of 
St. John was always in St. Jerom's Bible j and this 
fa6t 1 prov'd by indifputable witneflcs, from one age 
to another. 

Another fa6l prov'd and maintain'd, againft the 
flrongell objedions which ever were made to it, was, 
^ that the Preface to the feven Canonical Epillles, 
under the name of St. Jerom^ was really his. 

From the Bible of St. Jerom c^ which at prefenc 
goes under the name of the Vulgar Latin^ 1 pafs'd 
higher to the old Verfion us'd throughout all the 
Weitern Churches, and prov'd the dilputed pafTage 



aDilTerc. I. C^. 2,3,cr 4, b c/;. 5. ^ Ch, 6 vj, 

was 



(8) 

was alfo in that : This then h another proof of 
fad. 

From the iL^/i;^ Bibles I went on to the Greek^ and 
fhew'd, ^ that the Text of the three witnefles ir^ 
Heaven was in divers Greek MSS. of great antiquity : 
another proof of fad, which alone would be fuffi- 
cient to demonftrate the paflage genuine 5 and the 
truth of this fact I have prov'd in five following 
Chapters. 

Lallly, ^ I produc'd a proof of fa^lr, which is 
connected with the fore-going, and this is the 
publick and folemn acknowledgment of the Greek 
Church, that the Text is authentick : This fad I 
have moreover eftablifa'd upon proofs, againd 
which nothing that is juft and fubltantial can be 
objeded. 

Had not we half of thefe proofs, we fhould have 
more than are abfolutely requifite to convince a man, 
who fincerely fought after truth 5 and I doubt whe- 
ther there be many queftions, purely of fad, which 
can find themfelves encompai's'd with fo great variety 
of proofs, and fuch proofs, that every one of 'em 
taken apart of it felf, is conclufive, without the af- 
fiflanceof the reff, as are all thofe which I have juft 
mention'd. If Mr. Emiyn fhould call all this artful 
infinuations^ and fine Suppofttions^ he will give the 
pubhck leave to fiiy, that he knows not the vaft dif- 
ference betwixt a fine fuppofition, and a proof of 
fad, founded upon fu re witnefTes 5 let us now come 
to the particular examination of his anfwers. 



a Ch. 8,9, 10, iij iz. b Ch, 13, 



Chap. 



(9) 

Chap. II. 
A confiderahle acknowledgment of Mr. 
Emlyn'5, That the Text in dtfpute has 
been in the Latin Bibles from thefe 
later ages upwards to the eighth Cen- 
tury. 

'^T can't but be allowM a great advan- 
tage in favour of the Text in St. John's 




Epiftlc, that it is conflantly found in 
^17^^ the Bibles of the Wefiern Churches, 
fe^J from the Age wherein printing began, 
upwards to the eighth Century. The proofs I have 
given of it are fo evident, that the moll zealous de- 
fenders of the oppofite fide are oblig'd to give into 
'cm. Mr. Emiyn freely allows it us j but that no ad- 
vantage fhould be drawn from this confcflion, ^ he 
clogs it with this rellridion, that this Text is not found 
in all the Latin Manufcripts, nor yet in the moft. 

As to this laftpropofition, we mull believe he did 
not well confider what he faid j for befides that he 
brings no proof of it, I have demonftrated the quite 
contrary in my Dijfertation j I beg him to look it 
over again, and refled upon it a little more at his 
leifure. 

With refped to the former, to wit, that this Text 
is not found in all the Latin Manufcripts, 1 have my 
felf made the fame obfervation, after all the Authors 
who have wrote upon this fubjedlj but whatconclu- 
fion can be drawn from thence ? Mr, Emlyn cannot 
tell us. For if any thing can be gather'd hence 
againll the genuinefs of this Text, all other Texts 
concerning which the Manufcripts, whether Greek 

or 



( lO ) 

or Latm^ liavc varied, muft no longer be allow'd as 
authencick 5 and fuch a one of thele Texts, as fhall 
not be found in all the Manufcripts, tho' it be read 
in fome, does hereby quite lofe its authority, and 
muft be regarded as fuppofititious. If Mr. Emlyn 
cannot draw this confequence from this general prin- 
ciple, neither can he from any inference from the fame 
principle againfl: the paflage of St. John. I am wil- 
ling to believe for his honour, he will here fee the 
abyfs this principle is like to plunge him into. Let 
him give himfelf the trouble, if he pleafes, to run 
over Dr. Mills's New I'eft anient^ and fee how many 
Texts there are, which are wanting in whole, or in 
part, in divers Manufcripts of the greatell antiquity, 
whilft at the fame time they are read entire in others, 
and quoted by the Ecclefiaflical Writers of the fourth 
and fifth, and other ancient ages. 

I had plac'd among the ancient Copies of St. Je- 
rom's Verfion, the Emperor Lotharms Bible, in 
■which Mr. Simon informs us this Text is read, and 
which he tells us was copied from that of Charles 
the Great^ above poo Years ago, having been wrote 
upon the revife made by order of that Emperor in 
the Year 798. Mr. Emlyn was not pleas'd with 
feeing that I had trac'd fo far back the genuinenefs 
of this Text, and therefore has attempted to take 
off from the credit of Lotharius's Bible, by faying, 
That 'tis of much lefs authority than the Manu- 
fcript of Charles the Great^ tho' 'twas copied from 
it 5 becauie, fays he^ Mr. Simon tells us, the place 
in Lotharius's Bible, where the pafTage of St. John 
is found, is much chang'd and disfigur'd by the Al- 
terations which have been made between the lines. 
The too uncertain manner, in which Mr. Emlyn 
has given us this account, leaves room for fufpicions, 
that the difputed Text is really not in Lotharius^s 
Bible, or at leaft, that 'tis interlin'd only 5 and yet 
this is not the cafe, the paflage is in the Text, like all 

the 



the refl, and ihe writing inferted by a foreign hand, 
has rcfpect only to fome little different readings in the 
Latin Tranilation, but which in no wife affect the 
Original Greek^ nor in the main the Tranilation it 
fdf, as any one may fee from the firfl view of 
Mr. S'unon's words, which I have fet down enti''e> 
whereas Mr. Emiyn has thought fit to fpare himfelf 
the trouble cf tranfcribing the whole, and has given 
\is that part of 'em only, which might raife the above- 
mcntion'd fufpicions: The words then of My.Simojt 
are thefe 3 ^ The Copy is ftrangely disfigured in that 
place^ in that Copy the reading "was formerly thus : 
" Sunt tres qui teftimonium dant", the words in ter- 
ra being inUrlm^d^ " Spiritus, Aqua, & Sanguis, 6c 
'' tresunum funt : Et tres funt qui decoelo tell: iiican- 
" tur, Pater, Verbum, 6<: Spiritus, 6c tres unumfunt''^ 
hut afterwards thefe words^ " de coelo teilificantur", 
were erased to make room for thefe^ " teltimonium di- 
" cunt incojlo". 

The iirii thing then we fee in this Bible, \s^ 
that the words of the 8^^ verie are plac'd there be- 
fore thofe of the 7^^. I have given divers inftances* 
of their being thus wrong piac'd, both in Tome an- 
tient MSS. of the New 'Tefiament^ and fome old 
quotations. As to the v/ords in terrd^ which a fo- 
reign hand had interiin'd, this is a corredion of the 
omiilion of thofe words by the Writer who had co- 
pied Charles the Great's Bible. The different read- 
ing plac'd over thefe words of the 7'^ verfe, d: coelo 
teftificantur -y inflead whereof the emencation i/ads, 
tefUmoHium dicnnt in coelo^ alters nothing the feme of 
the Text, and keeps clofer to the Letter of the Greek 
Original. But the Text it felf, of the three VVit- 
neffes in Heaven, is fo far from being disfigur'd by 
thefe flight corredior?, that, on the other hand, 
'tis hereby the more furc and evident j becaufe if 



(a) Hift. Crit, du Texte du N. Teftam. ch. 18. fag, 2u. 

C it 



( I^ ) 

it had not been in Charles the Great's Bible, and the 
Copier had added it to that of Lotharius^ the Re- 
vjfor, or Cenfor, who was fo exa6fc as to make fuch 
an incondderable remark upon the paffage, would 
not have fail'd to have made one upon the Text it 
felF, as a Text which had crept into this Manu- 
fcript contrary to the purity of Charles the Great's 
Bible, and the others of that time. Mr. Emlyn 
then is here taken in his own nets. He entangles 
himfelf yet more and more, ^'^by allowing this Text 
to be found diredly in Charles the Great's Bible. 
But what follows from thence, fays he ? ff^ill this 
prove it to have been in the Greek MSS. at that time ? 
In the Latin, adds he, for certain it has long been. 

Mr. Emlyn confounds every thing, and obferves 
no manner of order, either with regard to the 
Tra6l he undertakes to anfwer, or the matters 
themfelves of which he writes j I have been forc'd 
to run from one page to another to form a Con- 
nexion, and gather 'em together out of the confu- 
fion he has thrown 'em into 5 and I can aflure him, 
that this is not one of the lead: troubles I find in 
confuting him : There is no one, who has read my 
Dijfertation and his Anfwer^ that won't agree with 
me in this. 

I return to what he has faid. That the Text in 
difpute 13 found in Charles the Great's Bible, a proof 
that it was in the Latin Manufcripts of that time, 
and before. 'Twas then, as I have obferv'd, in 
St. Jerom\ Verfion from the firfl ages of its being 
us'd in the Weftern Churches, which was not 'till 
the Seventh Century. Charles the Great's Bible was 
made in the Eighth > the paflage of St. John was in 
the Latin Bible before that time, the confequence 
forms it felf : This pafTage then was in the Bible of 
St. Jerom^ when it gain'd the preference in the 



Pag. 7. 

Churches 



( ^3 ) 

Churches of the Wcfl: over the Itallck V^erfion, 
which was the ancient vulgar Bible > I demand no 
L more at prcfcnt. 

x-^ny other pcrfon befidcs Viv. Emiyn would there 
find himfclf captive, but he has a refuge which few 
men would have expected, 'tis a Book that is to be 
written, arid which perhaps never will be written. 
A Book too of which he is not to be the Author 
neither, 'tis anotlier, a man of great reputation, 
and profound erudition 5 the name of Dr. B:ntley 
carries the encomium along WMth it, and even goes 
beyond it : I had the honour to kc him at Cam- 
bridge^ at trinity College, about twenty years ago. 
Dr. BerJley had receiv'd a letter from one of his 
friends, who took notice of his having heard, that 
the Doctor defign'd to throw out of the firlt Epiltle 
of St. Johr.^ the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter, 
in the Edition he propos'd to publiili of the New 
Tefiameyit : He anfw^ers, That he had collected with 
much diligence twenty Latin Manufcripts of about 
a thoufand vears old, or above, and that they agreed 
exadly with each others hwi for the PaJ/age of 
St. John, he knew not yet v:hat would he its fate. 
Mr. Emlyn thereupon takes heart, and proclaims Vi* 
ctory. I fijall take leave of this SiihjeU^ ^fays he, by 
JJjewing only how groundlefs and falfe Mr. Martin'j 
fundamental Sappojition /j, viz. That the Latin Bibles 
of the jixth^ jcventh^ and eighth Jges had generally 
this 7>a7, from the decifi-ve words of that tranfcend- 
cnt Critical Genius of this Jge^ Dr. Benrley ; And 
then he gives us the Do6lor's Letter. Ihe pub- 
lick is much oblig'd to that Learned Man for the 
trouble he has given himfclf in collecting this great 
number of Manufcripts of the Latin Bible, and him- 
ielt is not a little mdebted to his good fortune, 
that he has found among fo many others, which, 

' Pag. II. 

C 7, withouc 



( m) 

without doubt, are not very antient, twenty well 
told, which are of a thoufand Years ago^ or above, 
'Tis one of the mofl extraordinary difcoveries in 
that kind of literature that has been made in our 
Days. ^ F, leLong^ a learned and eniinent Father of 
the Oratory, had made very diligent Enquiry, with 
prodigious care and application, amongft the beft 
Libraries and moft famous Authors who have wrote 
upon thefe Subjefe, what were the moft antient 
Manufcripts we have at prefent of the vulgar Bible 
of St. Jerom^ and he tells us, he found none older 
than i'heodolphus's^ who fir ft was Abbot of Fleuri 
on the river Loire^ and afterward BiOiop of Orleans.^ 
which was wrote about the year 790. he mentions 
another which he fays is of the year 79 f. and a 
third, of which he doubts a httle, that is fhewn in 
the Monaftery o^Ciftercians^ in the Diocefe of Sens^ 
which is reputed a thoufand years old. Dr. Bentley 
fays, he has found twenty of that antiquity, and 
fome more ancient. He takes no notice in his Letter 
to his friend, whether every one of thefe Manu- 
fcripts has the whole A>iy 'Tefiament-y or whether 
fome have it not but in part only, which is a com- 
mon thing in antient Manufcripts , for inftance, 
there is at Cambridge .^ in "Trinity-College^ of which 
Dr. Bentley is Mailer, the famous Manufcript of 
Beza upon the Gofpels • and at Paris^ in the King's 
Library, the other part of that Manufcript, which 
is that of the Epiftles. So that we don't yet know 
how many Manufcripts Dw Bentley m^y have of St„ 
John's Epiftle 5 he does not tell us ; nay, he declares, he 
has not yet examin'd that particular Subjecl. As to 
that admirable agreement he fays he has found be- 
tween thefe Manufcripts in the places he has com- 



» In the Differtation upon the Text of St, John, printed 
at Utrecht, R le Long IS, by millake, called A karr.ed Bene- 
di^in, inHe^d of A lEather of the Oratory. 

par'd 



( m) 

far'dj we may afTurc him, without rafhnefs, that 
he'll find feveral wherein he'll fee difference enough. 
Erafmus^ who had" very great Skill in ancient Ma* 
nufcripts, and had feen an infinite number of the 
Neiv 7'eftament^ becaufe that in his time the inven- 
tion of Printing was but of late flanding, and Li- 
braries and private Houfes had fcarce any thing but 
Manufcript Bibles, afiures us in his Apology^ that 
thofe of a thoufand years old and above, did not 
exadly agree, it not being pofTible, fays he, the 
matter fhould be otherwife, partly thro* the igno- 
rance of a great number of Copiers, and partly thro' 
their negligence or raihnefs. 

To come now to the pafiageof '^t.John^ which 
is what regards us here in p^irticular. I with 
with all my heart that all the ancient Copies were 
found alike 5 that would be to the advantage of 
the caufe I defend. The Bible of Charles the Great ^ 
wrote a thoufand years ago, had this paiTage; The 
Revifers, who in 798 corrected the faults which had 
crept into divers Manufcripts of St. Jerom's Ver- 
fion, found this Text in thofe from which they 
made their revife : This carries it backwards, not to 
the age of a thoufand years only, but much farther. 
Above forty or fifty years before this famous re- 
vife, Jmbrofe Aiithpcrt^ Abbot of the Monallery of 
Si. Vincent^ in the Kingdom of Naples^ had read it 
in his Bible. U then the Manufcripts of Dr. Bent- 
ley have all this pafiage, Mr. Emlyn will be m.uch out 
in his reckoning : If fome have it, and others have 
it not, there will be nothing in this difference, that 
we have not feen in the Manufcripts mentioned bv 
Beza^ HenteniuSy T>\\ Burnet^ and others: If, laftly, 
none of Dr. Bentley's Manufcripts have the paifage, 
why yet we have 'em at hand, as I may fay, with 
the Bible of Charles the Great^ and all the others 
from which that Bible was composed, with the Bible 
of Jfi'dorus Mercator^ of Amhrofe Autbpert^ and of 

s * the 



(i6) 

the Author of the Ordo Romanm:^ which nil prefcn- 
ted this Text to thefe ancient Writers. The point 
then in difpute will be, Firft, to know, whether 
thefe Manufcripts lately difcover'd be really as old as 
Dr. Bentley takes 'em to be 5 for tho' the Dr. be an 
excellent Critick, ye we are not ignorant how dif- 
ficult it is, not to fay impofliblc, to pafs always in 
thefe cafes a certain judgment, and fecure from all. 
doubt : We need but call to mind what I have faid 
concerning F. MabiUon^ and F. de Montfaucon^ the 
two moft celebrated Criticks in this kind of learning, 
that have been ever feen. Secondly, We mull enquire 
whether fuch a particular number of Manufcripts of 
theBible, is a more certain rule to determine concern- 
ing a pafTage they have not, than the exprefs quotati- 
ons of thefamepaflag^in Authors of the famenntiqui- 
tyjor fomewhat more ancient, and Authors oFreputati- 
on too in their feveral times. A quotationisa pofitive 
and formal teilimony 5 the omifiion of a Text in 
fome Manufcripts, let it be what it will, can be only 
lookton as a negative one, a teilimony that lofes all 
its weight after the appearance of a pofitive, exprefs, 
and formal teflimony. One or two ancient Manu- 
fcripts may have been copied by a great number of 
others, and the omiflions in the former have pafs'd 1 
fucceflively into the later copies, without any perfon V 
being at the pains to examine whether they were cor- 
re6t or no : In quotations, the cafe is far otherwife: 
The Author, v/ho quotes a paflage, has not only 
read it in his Bible, but has alfo receiv'd it as ge- 
nuine 3 'tis a fort of pafs with which he fends it 
abroad into the world with his book 5 and if the 
world admits it therein as a Text which really be- 
longs to Scripture, the quotation this Author has 
made, becomes that of the publick. In fuch cafes, 
the unanimous lilence of all Writers, whether of the 
fame, or later times, has always held the place of an 
exprefs and formal approbation. We have firll of 

all 



all this quotation of St. John's pafTage in Authors 
and Writings much efteem'd in their times, which 
have pafs'd from one age to another, and againft 
which, neither in their own time, nor fince, any 
perfon appears to have ever obje(51:ed j fo far from it, 
that the Bibles, which have been wrote fince the 
ages thefe quotations were made in, have had the 
fame pafHige. Divines have given it in their Wri- 
tings, and it has not found in its way, in any age 
or any country, the lead contradidion : Thefe 
fafts are very certain, nor do I advance one word 
which I can't fully prove, was there occafion, and 
which is not taken notice of in my Dijfertation, 
Mr. Emiyn can't 'but have feen it, and what anfwer 
does he make to it ? Let but any one compare his 
Book with mine, and after that judge. Weak in 
himfcif, and openly to ward off the force of fuch 
heavy blows, he has run for Sanftuary to the great 
name of Dr. Bentley^ and ihelterM himfelf under his 
Manufcriprsj but I'm well aflur'd, the Dodlor and 
the Manufcripts will give him up to his badcaufe^ 
and that mine, which is the caufe of truth, has no- 
thing to fear from that quarter. IVe can do nothings 
fays S. Paul^ againft the truth ^ and we can do all 
things for it. 




Chap. 




C ^8 ) 

Chap. IlL 
That Mr. Emlyn has objeBed nothing 
reafonahle againfl the argument drawn 
from the revtfe of the New Tefta- 
ment m Charles the Great'i Ttme^ 
m behalf of the authentkknefs of 
St. John's paj/age. 

Mong the great number of proofs I brought 
to {hew the Text in St. John's firftEpiftle 
concerning the three witnefTes in Heavea 
was genuine, I allcdg'd the famous revife 
of St. Jerom's Bible, made by order of Charles the 
Great^ in the clofe of the eighth Century. That 
Bible had then been receiv'd but about two hundred 
years as the common Bible of the Weftern Churches, 
i. e, in all Europe : Abundance of faults had never- 
thelefs crept into the Copies, which had been made 
during that time. The matter could fcarce be other- 
wife, Printing was not yet in ufe y for 'twas not 
found out 'till the middle of the fifteenth Century j 
and all Books were then but Manufcripts, in which 
were multiply'd, Copy after Copy, the faults that 
the ignorance or inadvertency of the Copiers had 
fufFer'd to creep in. The moil: part of thefe faults 
were inconfiderable, and affefted not the fundamen- 
tals of Religion j 'twas neverthelefs matter of con- 
cern, that a Book fo facrcd as the New feftament^ 
for 'tis chat only we have now to do with, fhould be 
aker'd and disfigur'd by thefe abundant miilakes. 
The zeal of a private perfon had not been fufficient to 
remedy fo great an evil } 'twas requifite a Prince fo 
learned aad pious as Charles the Great ^ ihould form 
the defiga of infpefting the Mftnufcripts of thofe 

timcs^ 



( 19) 

times, and that to come off with fuccefs, he fhould 
commit the care of the revife and the choice of 
the Bibles to divers learned Men of noted abihties 
and probity. And thus it was the wife Emperor 
a6led : Alcuinus^ the learned Jlcuinus^ whom Hi- 
llory fpeaks of as a man of confammate skill in Cri- 
ticifm and the Sciences, was plac'd at the head of the 
fmall body who were chofen to be the Revlfers and 
Corredors. They all together difcharg'd the impor- 
tant Commillion, and fentout o'i their hands a Bible 
correded and purged from the fiulcs which had 
made that revife neceflary. The paflage of St. Joby; 
was, as we have feen, in this Bible, and convey 'd 
with the whole Epillle wherein 'twas read^ from the 
jfirfb MS. into the following ones by a Succeilioa 
which was uninterrupted, 'till the wonderful x^rt 
of Printing took away the cudom and ncceility of 
writing Manufcript Books. 

If this Text had not been conftantly in the Bibles 
before, which were in the hands as well of pri- 
vate families, as of Divines and the Clergy oF all 
forts, what an uproar and exclamation would the in- 
troducmg this novel verfe have rais'd in the world ? 
With what face could the learned men, employed 
in the revife, have bore the blame of it ? Charles the 
Great had given it to them in charge to correiSt the 
faults, whichj as I have (aid, were of no great im- 
portance : And inllead of doing this, they had in- 
ferted one of more moment than an hundred others 
taken together. Inflead of doing the duty of Co) - 
re^ors^ they had taken up the infamous profcffion 
oiCorruptors of the Scripture. What, fays iMr. Em- 
lyn to this ? He has taken care to anfwer nothing 
at all J for can it be callM an anfwer, is it: not 
rather to accufe thefe Revifers and CorrecStors as men 
who had neither honour nor confcience, to fay i-6 
he has done in page the eighth, xh^iif they follow' d 
em or afezvoftheL^iin Mamfcriffs^ where diferent 

D ffom 



( io) 

from the mofl and. heft^ I think 'tis no great wonder. 
1 am fathffd^^'^'j^ he, this has been often done^ viz. 
to prefer the reading that has pleas' d beff^ when againfi 
the moft and the beft Copies. If nothing better can 
be offtrM to take off an infuperable difficulty, 'cis 
the mod: prudent way to be wholly filent. 

And now we are upon the Corre6lors of St. Je-- 
rom's Latin Bible, that we may not be call'd to't a 
fecond time, let us fee what judgnnent Mr. Emlyn 
pafies upon their abilities. I had faid, ^ // was not 
to be fuppos'd they coUeUed only the Latin Manufcripts^ 
but had recourfe alfo to the Original Greek of the New 
Teftament, and a little before ^, But really.^ (aid I, 
would Mr. Simon, // he had liv'd in thofe days^ and 
Charles the Great had done him the honour to employ 
him in correBing the ^julgar Bibles^ would he upon the 
credit of a [mall number of Manufcripts^ or of fome 
few Latin Juthors^ ha've added to the Bible a pajj'age^ 
like this of 6'/. John ? Mr. E^nlyn treats this as a ridi- 
culous queilion : Mr, Martin, fays hc^pleafantly asksj 
if Father Simon, l^c, I fubmit it to the judgment 
of men of good fenfe, on which fide the advantage 
lies, Mr. Emlyn's or mine, and 1 confenc with all 
my heart, if Ihave faid achildifh or a foolifli thing, 
to take the ihame of it upon my felf. 

But on what grounds has Mr. Emlyn thought he 
might be merry at my expence ? Why, 'tis abfurd to 
tht?ik^ iliys he, the men of that Age would or could 
take fuch meafures^ as the learned of the prefent age 
would. But is it to level the one with the other, 
or to make 'cm take the fame meafures, to fay that 
Correctors cmploy'd by Charles tbe Great^ would not 
fail to compare ihc Latin Manufcriptswith the Greek 
ot the New "Teftament^ and that Mr. Simon would 
have undoubtedly done the fame ? If Mr. Emlyn\ 
name had appear'd in the front of his anonymous 
t ■ ... — — _— ^.^^— — _—- — ^ ^ 

! v-m. DilVcrt. /. 17. t. p^ j^. 

Diflcrtatio% 



I ^^ ) 

Diflertation, I had joyn'd him to Mr. Simor?^ and 
perhaps his modelly would not have been offended, 
tho' his zeal for Mr. Simon's learning was. 

But to dwell a little longer upon this remarkable 
paflage, ^ T'he Gr^ek Manufcripts^ fays he, werepro- 
bably very rare^ and bard to be come at in the We- 
ilern parts^ fo that the learned of thofe times had 

fcarce any thing of that Critical Skilly or genius^ . 

ivhicb is fo neceffary for fuch a JVork. If rhefc lear- 
ned Men underftood no more of the work they 
were upon, than Mr. Emlyn has judg'd of their un- 
derflanding and the skill men had in Greek in their 
time, Charles the Great made but a bad choice of 
them for a review of the Latin Bible. But, firff, 
whence does Mr. Emlynknow theGV^^X^ Manufcnpts 
of the New Tefiament were become very rare in the 
eighth Century ? Who inform'd him they were 
hard to come at in the fl^efl^ as if no one knew how 
to write Greek there ? And, lalUy, who told him 
'twas nccclfary to be fo great a Critick as he fuppofes, 
to revife the Latin Manufcripts of the Neiv "TeHa- 
ment by the Greek ones? The moll fupeificial know- 
ledge of that tongue would fuffice to know whe- 
ther fuch a particular paHage, which was found, or 
was wanting in the Latin^ was alfo found or was 
wanting in the Greek. I appeal to all who are 
not wholly ftrangers in the two languages, and to 
Mr. Emlyn himfelf, without fuppofing him for this 
to be a mighty Grecian j for perhaps he might be 
difpleas'd, ihould I join him to pcrfons of fuch little 
worth. 

We don't particularly know any of thefe Corre- 
ctors, but Alcuinus : France was oblig'd to England 
for him, and his reputation made him to be enquir'd 
after by Charles the Great^ ^ whofe Mafter he was \n 
feveral Sciences. He was learned in Greek and He- 



Pa^e 8. b Voff. 4e Hid. Lat. 



( ^^ ) 

hrew^ • fo was rJfo Charles the Great , infomuch 
that he undertook of himfelf to compare the Latin 
of the New 'Teflament with the Greek and Syriack : 
'Tis lofs of time to dwell longer upon Imaginations 
fo vain as are thofe Mr. Emlyn feeds himfelf with, 
andfeeks toimpofe upon others, and 'tis tirefome to 
fee fo many idle Notions advanc'd with fo much 
aflurance. 



Chap. IV. 

Of the Preface of St. Jerom to the fe-- 
ven Canonical Eptfiles^ alled^d as a 
proof of the Text concerning the three 
vjttnejfes in Heaven^ and defended 
aga'mfi Mr, Emlyn. 

|E ihould want no other proof to fliew 
the paflage in St. John's Epiflle was in- 
ferted by St. Jerom into the Latin Bi- 
bles, than the Preface which is plac'd 
before the feven Canonical Epillles, 
if every body was agreed that this Preface was really 
his. This pafTage is not only mention'd there as one 
of the principal foundations of the Chriftian Faith 5 
but withal, there is a loud complaint of its being 
omitted in certain Verfions by unfaithful franflators. 
This Preface is found in the Bibles of eight or nine 
hundred years old 5 the Z/^//>; Churches have receiv'd 
it with their Bibles, in all Countries, and at all times 5 
and no perfon that we know of, in its paflage thro' 
fo many ages and among fo many different nations, 

® Eginard, in th.e Life of Charles the Great, and Theyau^ 
(p|^. 7. ^se BefT^IiHS upn Eginard. 




(M ) 

has chargM it with being fpurious. In fome Manu- 
fcripts it was without a name j but this was in no 
\v[[c peculiar to it, for divers otherhke prefaces huve 
not had the fam'd name of St. Jerom prcBx'd to 'em, 
tho' indubitably his. In other Manufcripts St. Je" 
rom's name was fet before it, as before the gcncraHty 
of his other Prefaces : The particular humour or 
negligence of the Copiers was thefole caufenf thefe 
fmall variations ; fo that they made not the Uafl: im- 
preffion upon mens minds to the difadvantage of the 
authentickncfs of the preface 5 no more than of 
others, which were fometimes found to have St, Je- 
rom^s name, and fometimes not. The clouds of fu- 
fpicions and doubts were not form'd around it 'till 
our days, and from thefe doubts and fufpicions it is 
that arguments have been drawn againfl it. I have 
difpell'd thefe clouds by the force of trqth > to this 
end fhe had no farther occadon than to be fhewn, 
and 1 am perfuaded that I have fufficiently laid her 
open to the light, to be difcover'd by every one 
\vhofe eyes are not clos'd thro' prejudice. I fancy 
my felf to have difcern'd in Mr. Emiyjfs trad!:, that 
fome of thefe gleams of light, which have proceed- 
ed from the demonftration of truth, have reach'd 
even to him : he giv^s way to 'em, and makes no 
attempt to repel 'em j but yet his heart holds good 
againil the Preface, and he anfwers as he can, in 
loofe and general terms, the arguments I employ'd 
in its defence 3 or rather he is afraid to bring them 
back from the attack, whither I had vigoroully pufh'd 
*em. An advocate who does not gradually defend 
the arguments on his fide the queflion, fairly owns 
himfelf defeated -, a formal confeffion would have 
coil: him too much, and 'tis more than we can re- 
quire of him. If Mr. Emiyn kcs not himfelf de- 
fcrib'd in this ihort allegorical reprefentation, all 
thofe w^ho fhall read my Differ tafion and his per for- 
HiancCa however wilL 

He 



( m) 

He firll makes mc to lay, tha.t I think ^fimepf 
€ftbe rea'cns u^g'd Jg.a:nfi this Preface not to be fuf- 
f-de%t^ hut that duJ it may pvjjibly he St, Jerom'j. 
I'm not ienhble I have faid this, nor has Mr. EmJyn 
iccn 2Xiy thing like it in my Diicourie. Far from 
having laid ^nily, and by way of rell:ri<9:ion, that 
1 think fome^ tf tkefe rcafcns nvt to be fupcient : I 
have found 'em all fo inconclufive, that I let not 
one of 'em pafs \?ri:hout a ConRjtarion. Neither 
have I laid, the Preface might poiEbly be Sr. Je- 
rom's, I have maintained that it is hisj all that I 
have laid, is, thit tho' ir vras not his, but com- 
posed by one of the Corredors employed by Charles 
tbs Great ^ as Mr. Simon has ridiculoufly fancied, 
the genuinenefs of St. John's Text, would thereby 
lofe nothing in the main 3 but that }£t I 'ivould de- 
fend it again fi^ the imputations vf the modern Criticksj 
for this vnJy reafcn^ hecaufe 1 'was fenfMe they 's.ere 
'K^oUy groundlefs. Mr. Emiyn j[hould read with 
more caution. 

Be it Td tUen, he fays, but yet ^\x. Martin 

cos teZ'Cr gzi-e a gDod ar, fiver to all. If I have 

not, whv does not he confute my feveral anfwers ? 
The worfe they were, the more eafy would it have 
beei for him to overturn 'cm > and the matter 
would have been wonh his while, was it only for 
the Pkafure of laying open the weaknefs of one of 
the moft common proofs of the auihoriry of a Text, 
he is fo unwilling ihould fland in the Epiflle of 
St. John. 

The whole of his laft Shift againft the Preface, 
to prove it fuppofititious, amounts to this, that it 
can be none of St. JcTcm\ becaufe it fpeaks with 
fo much force of 2 Text fo fundamental to the 
Faith, which yet Sr. Jervm has not once mention'd 
in all his Works : He would fav, in all thofe that 



ancienr 



(^5) 

ancient Do5:or has wrcxe againft hercticks, and rhc 
jirians in particular. This reaicmng fuppofes Sainc 
Jerom to have wrote fome Works, or, at Icaft, one 
Tract, wherein he has treated the fubjcS of j^ri- 
anifm to the bottom j for otherwife the rcafoning 
will be either wholly void, or very near fo j and 
yet 'tis certain, that in all the great Volumes of 
this Father, we have not one fingie DiTcourlc of his 
againll Jrianifm i he has not touched upon it but 
by accident, and as occafion offcr'd, in divers of his 
Commentaries upon the Old and A>a; Tepinunty 
and even there he's very fparing for the moft 
part, and at beft makes ufe only of fome paiTages 
which came in his way, whofe defign was not to 
write a fet Book of controverly, and confcquently 
did not make ufe of all the Advaauges which were 
in his power. 

Tho' were it true, that St. Jsrom had drawn up 
% particular treatife againft the Arian herefy, would 
it lollow, that this Text was net in his time in 
St. Jchn's Epiitle, becaufe he <i\^ not quote it, tho* 
full to his purpofe? Certainly the Confequence 
would not be juit > and Mr. Emlyn^ before he u^gt? 
this reafoning as a proof, ihould call to mind what 
I have wrote upon this Subjed in the third chapter 
of the fecond part of my DiUcnation, where I 
have dcfiroy'd this way of writing by divers convin- 
cing inilances. A little Logick is enough to mew 
there is no confequence in fuch an Argument -, this 
or that particular Writer of Antiquity has not quoted 
a paflage in a certain place of his Book, where it 
would have been to his purpofe, and cu:-ih;n'd all 
others that could be brought j this palTage therefore 
was not in the time of that ancient W riter in Holy 
Scriptures : Thofe who realon after this manner, 
ibouid learn better the rules of their Logick : I 
appeal to ail Philofophers in the world 

Among 

4 



(26) 

Among the Authors I quoted in the Chapter 
juft mention'd, were Figilius of ^apfumj and Saint 
Fulgentius^ the two greatelt Antagonills of the Art* 
cms in the fifth Century, and the beginning of thd 
fixth : And I fhew'd, that tho' both thefe had urg'd 
the pafuige of St. Joh?i in divers of their difputesj 
thty had not yet made ufe of it in other Treatifes up- 
or the fame fubjeft, in which 'twas fcarce to be 
cor'.eiv'd they could poffibly have omitted itj in 
the fame place may be feen the conclufion I drew 
from thence 5 'tis founded on the mofl certain rules 
of rcafoning, and 'tis impoflible ever to evade it. 

I beg leave to add here fome other inflances, in 
order to difpel quite thefe falfe Lights, which I 
perceive the Enemies to St. John's pafTage fuffer 
themf^lves to be led aliray with. Vigilius of "tap- 
fum has wrote againll the Eutychians^ who con- 
founded the Son and the Holy Ghoft with the Fa- 
ther : He oppofes to tfiem the Avians who divided 
the nature of the Father and the Son> and in the 
iarne treatife he confutes thefe two fo oppofite He- 
refies : Jefus Chrift has faid^ I and my Father are 
one : In faying I and my Father, he has divided what 
SabelHus wrongfully confounds y and in adding^ are 
one, he has uyiited what Arius feparates> He then 
gives us the Text of St. Matthew^ chap. 28. in 
which is the form of Baptifm, In the narae of the 
Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghoft j and makes 
the fime remark upon it, as upon the foregoing 
Text : Jefus Chrift^ fays he, has fignify'd the unity 
of the three by faying in the fengular number^ In the 
name. Ought not the padage of St. John's Epiftle, 
which is more exprefs than all thefe, to have been 
here alledg'd, wherein the pluraHty of perfons is 
taught in fo plain terms, againft the Herefy of 
Arius ? And yet this moil dcGiiive Text is no 
where feen. But to go on j 

The 



The {lime VigUlus wrote againft the Avians^ whom 
he had always in view, a Trcatife in form of a Dia- 
logue, which he divides into two Books. In the 
former are introduced Athanafiiis and Arius difputing 
together before Prohus^ whom they had appointed 
a Judge in their difpute. Athanafius in two places 
urges againfl Arius thefe words of Jefus Chrift^ Go 
and teach all nations^ baptizing them in the name of the 
Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofl. The 
pafTage of St. John^ There are three in Heaven that 
bear record^ the Father^ Sec. is not once mentioned 
throughout the Dialogue. 

See yet, if poffible, fomewhat more remarkable. 
Figilius in his fecond Dialogue, adds the perfons of 
SabeUitis and Photinus to thofe of Athanafius and 
Arius^ in order to prove againft thofe Herericks the 
plurality in the Unity. Athanafius urges thefe words 
in the firfl Chapter of Genefis^ Godfaid^ Let us make 
man in our own image , and fays, thofe who confult are 
three ^ the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofi j but 
thefe three are one. The Text of St. John would have 
been more convincing, and yet is not there alledg'd. 
Figilius goes on, The Son difcourfing of the grand my- 
fiery of the Trinity.^ has faid^ I am the God of Abra- 
ham^ and the God of Ifaac^ and the God of Jacobs 
in faying^ lam, '' Ego fum^\ he hasfljewnthere isbut 
one God y and in repeating three times^ the God of 
Abraham^ the God of Ifaac^ and the God of Jacohy 
he has more openly declared the my fiery of the 7? inity. 
Is this proof comparable with thepaflage of St. John? 
From the Texts of the Old Tefiament, Figilius 
pafles on to the N'ew j and here fure one might expe6l 
to find this excellent paflage : Let us fee then : Let 
7is hear ^kyshe^ St. V^iuXfpeakingmoreexprefily of the 
fame my fiery ^ and faying tn his fir fi Epifile to the Co- 
rinthians, ch, 12. V. 4, f . Now thae are diverfities 
of gifts, i^c. becaufe there is a 'Trinity^ he names 
three^ and bscaufe the Trinity is but om Gijd^ after halving 

E nam''d 



(28) 

nam' d the three perfons^ he fays not in the plural^ which 
Work all in all, but in the fingular^ which worketh. 
'Twas very natural to add the pafl^ige of St. John to 
that of St. Paul^ and I own I expeded it was there 5 
but this paflage is entirely forgot. Tho' then St. Je- 
rom had wrote as many Tracls againft the Ariayis^ as 
this ancient African Bifliop, and in none of 'em had 
urg'd the paflage in difpute, it would not follow, that 
this paflage was not then in the Apoille'sEpillle. 

'Tis no anfwer to fay, that what Vigilius has not 
done in ihefe places, he has in others : My reafoning 
does not tuni upon that, nor is in the leaft affcded 
with it. I only fay, that it docs not follow, bccaufe 
an ancient Writer, St. Jerom for inftance, has not 
quoted this Text in a Difcourfe, wherein 'twas natu- 
ral to quote it, and which fince has been quoted by 
others, either contemporary with him, or living a 
iiiort tmie after him > it follows not, I fay, that the 
Writer di^di not look upon the Verfe as really St.John's : 
Thus far my reafoning is jull: and unexceptionable. 

But this is not all : Mr. Emiyn would argue the 
Preface, wherein this Text is mention'd, to be none of 
St. 7<?;w/2's for thisreafon, becaufe St. 7(?r(??;^ has not 
quoted it in the Works which are generally own'd to 
be his : This is another admirable manner of reafoning. 
We maintain this Preface is not fpurious, and anfwer 
fully all the Objections brought againft it : Mr. Em- 
iyn takes no notice of the anfwers given, and contents 
Jhimfeif with faintly inlying, 'tis none of St. Jerom'^s^ 
becaufe mention is made in it of the paifage in 
S. John's Epiitle, which St. Jerom has no where 
elfe quoted. Do's he reafon well, who draws his 
proof from the matter in difpute ? We produce in 
behalf of St. John's pafTage, the Preface, which has 
always been receiv'd as St. Jerom's > and we are told 
it is not his, becaufe thepaifageof St. John is in it. 
Whofe is it then ? I would not put this queftion, 
was not Mt.£^/;'^ toanfwci us after Mr. Simony that 



( ^9 ) 

tis the work of one of the Coneclors who revis'J 
the Bible by Charles the Great's order. 'Tis ibrpri- 
zing, that after all I have advanced againft this vain 
conjecture of Mr. Simon^ Mr. Emlyn lliould iwy^ the 
contrary does not appear by Mr. Maitin him/elf. I 
fliew*d how ridiculous this imagination was, which 
Mr. Simon with his ufual aiTurajice had ventur'd to 
fend abroad without any fupport of authoiity, or 
other proof*, and yet we are fince told with very 
little thought and reflexion, that I have not made 
the contrary appear ; pray^ what other confutation 
does a fidion, a mere idle conceit deferve ? If Mr. 
Emlyn would do any thing to the purpofe, he fliould 
furnifli Mr.5'/>;^o;^ with fubltantial proofs, which he 
could not find, to make good what he advanced, 
'viz. that thisPrefiice was forg'd by fome one of the 
Corre6tors -, but fo long as he, or his Author ihall 
forbear to produce any, the fidion will remain al- 
ways a fiction, ar.d be treated with ridicule by men 
of fober minds. 

However, if h'lr. Emlyn yti requires I fhould Hiy 
fomewhat more upon the Subjecft, 1 won't refufe to 
add fome other conliderations upon it. This perfon 
was not the only man entrulk'd with the revife of 
the Latin Bibles, the burden had lain too heavy up- 
on any one man's Shoulders^ and had been too long- 
winded a piece of work : More than one then were 
concern'd ni the afKiir j and as in all performances of 
this nature, the perfons employed make a diitribution 
of what falls to every ones paiticular ihare, and then 
re-unite their labours in the conferences they have to- 
gether 5 by this means, what at lirli: was the work 
of one private pcribn, becomes afterwards the a61: of 
all. If then one of thefe Revifers had drawn qpthe 
Prologue to the feven Epiiiles, he would but have 
put in execution the refolution agreed on among 'em 

* Page (J, 

E i all, 



( 30 ) 

all, viz, that thefe Epiftles having no Preface before 
'em, as Mr. ^'//^^^^^ pretends, 'twas requifite to prefix 
one to 'em. And after the Preface was made, it 
would have been brought before them all when met 
together, in order to be read and examin'd j after 
which it would no longer be the preface of one, but 
the preface of all. I hope Mr. EmJyn won't treat 
this zs fuppofition^ imagination^ fancy^ words he has oft 
made ufe of with as little reafon. Every wife and 
judicious man will evidently fee the plan is juft, and 
that matters could not be otherwife. Here then 
thefe learned, thefe chofen men, are all of a fudden, 
and without any real neceffity, turn'd cheats and im- 
poftors in putting off as St. Jerom's,, a treatifethem- 
felves had forg'd > a forgery and impofture withal, 
that would expole 'em to the reproach of all man- 
kind > for no man could be ignorant that St. Je- 
Tom's Bible had no fuch Preface, in cafe, as Mr. Si- 
mon will have it, it had really never been inferred m 
it. Had I not then reafon to fay, that if they had 
been the Authors of this Preface, they would not 
have fent it abroad under St. Jerom's name, fince if 
they had put it out of their own head, and not giveq 
it the character of a piece of St. Jerom's^ no perfon 
could have complain'd of 'em, and they had done no 
more than they had a right and liberty to do : Yet 
Mr. Emlyn has diverted himfelf upon the occafion, 
as it were at my expence, that I have made a refle- 
xion upon the little addreis the pretended Authors 
of this preface would m fuch a cafe have been Ma- 
kers of. 

Nor has he only advanc'd this pleafant turnagainil 
mc, he has obliquely thrown a more fatyrical refle- 
ction upon the Corredors, in fuppofing they had be- 
liev'd the Text in controverfy was in all the Greek 
Copies i for 'tis from this fuppofition he draws an 
argument to fhew the Preface could not be St. Je- 
rom'^i I Beftdes^ fays he, St, Jcvom firely could never 

be 



( 3^ ) 

he guilty of fuch a falfe inftnuation^ that all the Greek 
Copies had this 'uerje :' Have the pretended Authors 
of the Preface then infinuated this ? They havefpokc 
only in general and loofe terms, they have faid no 
more than that thc^e^ unfaithful 1'ranjlators had much 
departed from the truth : But cannot a Tranllator be 
unfaithful in the Verfion of an Epiftle, unlefs all 
Copies have the paflage omitted by him ? 'Tis fuffi- 
cient the paflage is ordinarily in the Copies of the 
Epiftles, and generally receiv'd as fuch : Every par- 
ticular Copy, wherein 'twas wanting, would on fuch 
occafions pafs for nothing, and a Tranflator would 
have but an hard task on't, if in order to deferve the 
title of a Faithful Tranflator^ he muft be aflur'd of 
the conformity of all Copies, and that there is no one 
extant, in which the paflage is v/anting. St. Jerom 
himfelf in this cafe, would oft have been an unfaith- 
ful Tranflator. But we have laid enough upon a mat- 
ter fo evident. The Preface then to the feven Cano- 
nical Epiilles, is neither the Work of one of the 
Corredors, nor of all of 'em together : 'Tis St. Je- 
rom' s own Performance, as I have prov'd in my Dif- 
fertation^ and in this Difcourfe ; The tellimony of 
the three witnefl^es in Heaven was found in the Latin 
Bibles, as well before as after the Correction. Si.Je- 
rom complain'd in the Preface, that fome Tranflators 
in his time had omitted em : All this amounts to a 
full demonftration, that the pafllige was always in 
St. Jerom'^ Bible. 



a Page 13. b Prolog, in Epill. Canon. Ab tnfidslibui tran- 
flatorii/us rnultHm erratum ejfe a fidei veritate comperimas. 



Chap. 




(30 

Chap. V. 
Of the ancient Corredorium of the 
Sorbonne, and the Publick-Servke- 
Booh. 

jT has oft bappen'd, as I have obferv'd, 
thro' the fault of the Copiers, that a paf- 
fage, which is really a part of Scripture, 
has been omitted in a Manufcript, and 
from this firft, in divers others which have been co- 
pied after it j and as every private perfon or family 
tolerably inflruded had a Copy of the New ^efta- 
^nient^ 'tis not poffible but feveral, and fometime con- 
iiderable omiffions mud creep into thefe Manufcripts 
belonging to particular families j this is generally 
own'd by all mankind, and in order to be certainly 
afTur'd of the authority of a Manufcript, we mull 
find it in the Corre^oria of the Bibles, or in thePub- 
lick-Service-Books, which were us'd in the Churches. 
There Avas made at Parisj in the Sorhonne^ a revife 
and corre6lion of the Bible about the tenth Century, 
Mr. Simon^ who has told us of this Corre^oriumj 
has obferv'd, that the Correcloria may ferve in the 
place of Manufcripts. 1 fi^id hereupon, that the paf- 
fage of St. John being found in this piece, 'twas a 
certain proof there was no fcruplc made inpublickly 
owning the Text as genuine, in like manner with ali 
the rell. I don't fee that Mr. Emlyn has anfwer'd 
any thing to this. 

Upon this occadon, I ihall here carry the matter 
yet higher. The Latin Tongue w^as the common 
Language in all Europe, the Bibles were wrote in 
L^tin^ the Rituals and Commentaries were alfo Lar 
tin\ infomuch that a Bible with the Text and Notes 
was then the lame that a Bible with annotations in 
4 the 



( 33 ) 

the language of every particular country is at prefent. 
A few years after the revife made in the clofe of the 
eighth Century, JValafrid Straho publifh'd a Bible 
with notes, which was in the hands of the Learned, 
and the People, and of common ufe in families, and 
I have obferv'd concerning this in my DiJJertation^ 
that the verfe of the three witncflcs in Heaven, was 
in the body of the Text, attended with a very ex- 
cellent annotation. This proof, which makes it fo 
evidently appear, that the paflage was generally 
read in the vulgar Bible, has been left alfo without 
a reply. 

The Truth of the fame fa6b was made out from 
the offices in the Rituals, Le£lionaries, or Publick- 
Service Books : This proof prefs'd clofe, and Mr. 
EmJyn was too fenfible of its weight to let it pafs 
without notice ; that would be to give up the au- 
thenticknefs of the Paflage he difputes : and yet, 
after all, I know not whether a profound Silence 
would not have been much better than a pitiful 
Anfwer. 

A Ritual,, or Le^lionary, intitled. The Roman 
Order concerning the Offices throughout the zvhole Tear^ 
a Book of great antiquity, believ'd to be drawn up 
in the Year 730. has thefe words. Upon the Otlaves 
^/ Eafler are read the /even Canonical Epifiles. Hi- 
therto then we are not got mighty forward in our 
inference, that the Text of the three witnefles in 
Heaven was read publickly in the Church : The 
Roman Order has nothing particular, it fpeaks only 
in general of reading the fevcn Epiftles, among 
that is one which has St. John's paflage : But Du- 
randus Bifhop oi Mcnde^ who liv'd in the thirteenth 
Century, fays, in his Rationale of divine offices^ that 
\\\tis piirfuant to the Ordo Romanus this paflage of 
St. John was read in the Church on "Trinity Sunday^ 
a cuftom lubfifting for near a thoufand years with- 
out interruption. 

Now, 



( 34 ) 

Now, is not a fa61: fo conftant and publickly no- 
torious, a decifive proof, that the whole Church 
has own'd this paflage to be really St. Johnh \ and 
confequently ought we not to look upon the Copies, 
which have it nor, as private Manufcripts, and dif- 
apprcv'd by the Church" for not having this Text? 
What can be faid to this ? The fad is certain, and 
the confequences juft. Why, all Mr. Emlyn has 
been able to devife, is this j ^ Perhaps in Sl Bernards 
time^ viz. in the Eleventh Jge^ it might he got into the 
Ordo Romanus, and the Offices of the Churchy both 
Latin and Greek. St. Bernard is here put in (lead 
of Durandus Bifliop of Mende^ for 'tis he and not 
St. Bernard who has wrote what I have jufl men- 
tion'd concerning the Ordo Romanus^ nor did Saint 
Bernard live in the Xl^^^ but the Xll^^ Agt : But 
to come to fad. Had I not reafon to fay, 'twould 
have been much better to let thefe Service-Books 
pafs quietly without any anfwer, than to anfwer 'em 
only Vv^ith a perhaps ? In fhort, what ground has 
Mr. Emlyn to fiy, this paflage might be got into 
the Ordo Romanus^ in the time either of Durandus 
or St. Bernard ? Is it then, that he has read the 
paflage of the three witnefles in Heaven in the Ordo 
Romanus^ to tell us, that not being there in former 
times, it might be crept into it in St. Bernard's 
time ? W hat means he farther by confounding the 
Oflices of the Greek Church with thofe of the La- 
tin^ as if the Greek Church had taken for its model 
the Ritual nam'd Ordo Romanus ? He fliould weigh 
Matters with fomewhat more attention. 

What follows isn't more folid, tho' how^ever 'tis 
in fome refpcd fpecious. He (ays then, that Pub- 
lick- Service Books, or Rituals, are not works 
which continue always abfolutely the fame in every 
part, and that from time to time alterations and cor- 



Pag, 7. 

regions 



(3J ) 

regions are wont to be made in 'em : And here- 
upon he gives us two inlliances of Alterations made 
in the Coynmon- Prayer Book of the Churcli of Eng- 
land {mcQ the reign of ^^it'^r^ the VP'^ ; and what 
is more remarkable, one of thefe alterations refpe6ls 
the very paHnge of St. John. ^ Thcfc ^joords^ fays 
he, moere introduced among the Epi files imthout any 
mark of Sufpicion^ ivhile at the fame time^ and long 
after^ they ivcre marked for doubtful in the puhlick 
and common Bibles, 1 am ignorant how thefe Mat- 
ters ftand, as alfo of his other indance, which is 
taken from the 28^^^ verfe of the lof^'^ Pfalm in the 
fame Common-Prayer Book. But be thefe particu- 
lar fa61:s as they will, they neither of 'em are of 
weight on the prefent occafion : Thefe inllances 
prove only that an alteration fometimes happens ia 
Liturgies > but he mull: prove from authorities and 
teflimonics, that this has happened to the ancient 
Rituals of the Latin Church with refpe6t to the 
Text of the three witnefies in Heaven : And this is 
what he'll never be able to prove. On the other 
hand, I have made it appear in my Diff^rtation^ 
that the ufage has alv/ays been preferv'd the fame, 
from the firll of thefe Rituals that we know of, 
which is that of the Qrdo Romanus^ down to our 
times. 

Besides, the inftances alledg'd above, {hew only, 
either that the tranllation of a paffage has been dif- 
ferent, as in the cafe of Pfalm lof. f. 28. or, 
that the manner of writing a Text has been alter'd 
according to the Rcafons which prevail'd at diffe- 
rent times : This is a matter properly belonging to 
the Clergy, who have been concern'd in fuch alte- 
rations y the People had nothing to do with it ; 
And the paflage in St. John's EpilVic not being call 
out of the Liturgy, but remaining always the 

F fame 



( 3<5) 

fame from one end to another, the Church recelv'd 
no Scandal thereby -, and the Edification fhe always 
gain'd from a Text fo full of inftru6tion, continu'd 
perfed, not with (landing the nicety of the Authors 
of thefe little alterations which are here fpoken of. 
But all this is nothing to our prefent purpofe 5 'tis 
to deceive himfelf, and impofe upon others, — for 
*tis entirely to change the ftate of the queition : The 
queftionis only, Whether the Church ever had in her 
PubHck-Service Books a Text which was not Scrip- 
ture 5 a fuppofititious Textj 'tis this alone he muft 
prove from ancient inftances, againft which no Ob- 
jeftion can be made : But when will Mr. Emlyn 
do this ? Should he run over all the Libraries in 
the world, he would not find one fingle inflance of 
a like pafiage introduced into the publick Offices. 

Thus it remains clearly and convincingly made 
out by feveral proofs of different kinds, (againft 
which Mr. Emlyn has had nothing to oppofe, or 
has return'd only vain anfwers,) that 'tis true thefe 
admirable words, ^here are three in heaven that bear 
record^ the Father^ the TVord^ and the Holy Ghoft-, 
and thefe three are one^ have always been in St. Je- 
rom's Bible. But they had not been there, had 
they not belonged to the Apollle St. John^ as well as 
the Epiftle, of which they make a part. 



^.i^^ 




Cha p. 




{ 37) 

Chap. VI. 
Mr. Emlyn'5 anfwer to the proofs taken 
from the African Churches for the au- 
thority of the Text tn St. John's Epi^ 
fiky examined. 

Fcer the great number of evident and fub- 
ftantial proofs I brought to fhew the Text 
of the f *^ Chapter ofSt.7^^«\sEpiftle\vas 
always in St. Jeroni's Bible j I prov'd at the 
Hime time, that 'twas alfo in the ancient Latin Bible, 
nam'd the Italick. This fa6b is of fufficient impor- 
tance to deferve a thorough examination j becaufe 
if 'tis certain the pafTage in difpute was in a Verfion 
fo ancient, and one that was in ufe too among all 
the Latin Churches both in Europe and Africk^ 
there can no longer remain the leaft doubt of its 
being genuine. The matter then is only to fettle 
well this fad: Now a fa6]: we have oblerv'd muft 
be prov'd by other fads, bare reafon is not fuffici- 
ent either on one fide or the other. We have faid 
withal, that the moll certain proofs of Eift, infuch 
a cafe as this, are quotations of the pafTage in Latin 
Authors, who wrote at a time, and in a country 
where the Italick Bible alone was read in the 
Churches and Families. If we had the Manufcripts 
themfelves of this Bible, we might compare 'em 
with the quotations of the Bifliops and other learn- 
ed and pious Writers of thofe Ages : But alas ! this 
means is entirely taken away from us, for all are 
loll by length of time, the negligence of men, or 
the ruin of a prodigious number of Libraries, which 
have been utterly deltroy'd in Europe and Africk% 
fome by fire, others in the taking and facking of 



( 3S ) 

Towns, or fuch like (iid accidents. The quotations 
then of St. John's pafiagc, as of divers others, ought 
at prefent to hold the place of the Manufcripts of 
the ancient Vulgar Bible. One or two of thefe 
might fuffice, bccaufe the whole matter being to 
know whether this verfe was in the Bible, an Au- 
thor who had quoted it in any work, whoft anti- 
quity cannot be called in queftion, would be to us 
a full warrant that the pallage was genuine. But 
inilcad of one Author we have three, all three Bi- 
fhops, and Bifliops of reputation too, St. Eucherius 
Bifnop of Lyons in France^ Figilius Bilhop of Tap- 
fum in Africk ; and Fulgentius Biiliop of iRufpe in 
jifrick alfo : The two laH were cotemporaries, the 
other flouriih'd about fo Years before them. In 
the mouth of two or three witneffes^ fays our Saviour, 
JhaJl every word be ejlahlified^ i. e. the faft well 
prov'd : But the more the witnellcs are to be re- 
Ipefted for their piety, their wifdom, and condi- 
tion, their depofition is the more weighty and de- 
cifive of the fad it agrees with. Had I then in 
my Dijfertation brought only the depofition of thefe 
renowned Servants of God for the authenticknels 
of the conteftcd pafTagc, I mufl be fure of gaining 
my caufe before the Tribunal of rcafon, the only 
Judge I can admit of in this Affair. If Mr. Emiyn 
had fubmitted to it, as I have done, there would 
have been no difpute betwixt us: But prejudice 
has alfo her Tribunal, and it unfortunately happens, 
that men very often carry their caufe thither, and 
receiv^e judgment thence. However, prejudice 
mufl have taken deep root in the mind when it 
fubmits not to fuch teflimonies as I have jufb now 
produced : How great mull: it then be, when it 
holds out againft the like depofiiions of three or four 
hundred Bifhops, who, upon the moft important 
occalion of their life, or which happen'd in divers 
Ages together, reprefented in their perfons all the 

Churches 



( 59) 

Churches of Jfrick^ Sardinia^ Corfica^ and the Ba- 
learick Iflands, Majorca and Mhiorca\ and who in 
this Aft, To Hicred, and at a time lb dangerous to 
Orthodoxy, the caufc of which they defended 
before a furious Tyrant, prefcnt him with this Text, 
and ufe it as a Shield to the Do6lrinc of the Tri- 
nity. If prejudice ftands firm againd fuch an at- 
tack, we muit not hope that 'twill ever be fubjeft- 
cd to reafon : And God only can draw it out of the 
mind by the power of his grace. I bewail, from 
the bottom of my heart, all perfons in this condi- 
tion j and 1 earneftly beg of God, both with re- 
gard to the authenticknefs of this Text, and princi- 
pally to the truth contain'd in it, that he would open 
the Eyes of all thofe whom prejudice hinders from 
Teeing it. 

Can there really be any thing in it felf more evi- 
dent than the authority of this Text ofthe Apoflle 
in the quotations I have produc'd from Vigilius and 
St. FuJgentius? The former has quoted it thrice in 
a Work expreflly wrote to prove a Trinity of 
Perfons in the Godhead againft the Avians of the 
£fth Century: And St. Fulgentius has it alfo in two 
of his Books wrote againll the fame Avians, Mr. 
Emlyn^ who fcarce fticks at any difficulty, declares 
he's not much embarrafs'd with thefe quotations, 
not becaufe he finds 'em falfe, nor that he's ignorant 
Vigilius and Fulgentius were men of great reputation 
for learning and piety, and above all very zealous for 
a belief which, at prefenr, fuits not well with fome 
mtn^'-ciz. a Trinity of Perfons in the Godhead : Mr. 
E?nlyn knows all this 5 he doubts not but thefe good 
Bifhops found the verfe in their Bibles, but ^ thefe 
inilances, fays he, come too late, they are of the 
fifth and (ixih Centuries. 'Tis true, Vigilius wrote 
ill the fifth, and St. Fulgentius in the beginning of 

I Vag, 16. 

the 



(4o) 

the fixth, but were their Bibles ever the lefs of the 
old Italkk Verfion? For 'tis expreilly on this the 
ilrefs of my argument lyes : The time a quotation 
from an Ancient Book is made in, is nothing to the 
thing it felf whereon the quotation turns 5 as every 
child knows. In order to wreft this proof out of 
my hands, and render it unferviceable to me, he 
muft ihew me, by good arguments, that the Bibles 
of thefe Bifhops were not the old Italkk Verfion, 
fince my proof here wholly turns upon that ancient 
Verfion : But who will do this ? There's no man 
living, that has any reputation for learning, and 
efpecially for judgment , will attempt it 5 the 
defign would prove too unfuccefsful. St. jerom's 
Bible was not us'd in Afruk in the time of Vigi- 
lius and St. Fulgentius^ and I qucftion whether it 
can be prov'd to have been us'd there ever fince. 
Befides, of what fervice wou'd this be to inva- 
lidate the authenticknefs of St. John's paflage? 
This would be to grant what fo much pains is 
taken to deny, that this pafTage was from the age 
of St. Jerom found in his Bible. From whence 
then are the mention'd quotations taken? Why, 
Jlays Mr. Emlyn^ from fome new Tranilation, which 
private perfons took the liberty of making, and 
which did not always agree with the Bible read 
in the Publick Service. Mr. Emiyn is here again 
egregioufly miftaken. For, firft, a Tranflation made 
by a private perfon, is not the fame thing with the 
introdu6tion of an entire pafl^age, which had never 
been in the Original, nor in any Verfion, and which 
confequently would be an unknown and fpurious paf- 
fage. A Verfion made by a private perfon might be 
in divers places different from the common tranfla- 
tion, This is every day feen, but fuch a corruption 
of the Text, as that of the feventh verfe of the 
fifth Chapter of Si. John's Epiflle, would be an 
attempt that coijld neitho: be excus'd^ nor tolerat- 
ed 5, 



( 41) 

cd > and Mr. Emlyn fhould have given us proof, 
that feme one of thcfe pretended private Verfions 
had TextSj which the Bibles read in the Churches 
had not J otherwife all this is a mere evafion. Se- 
condly, Suppofing that fome one of thefe private 
Verfions had added this Textto the Epillle, yet had 
not the Bilhops who quoted it the common Bible of 
all the African Churches ? Or were they fo ignorant 
as not to know they had nrver read this Text in 'em \ 
Or focarelefs and imprudent, that finding it in thefe 
private Verfions, they had no regard to the Bible, 
which alone was publickly authoriz'd ? In truth, 
Mr. Emlyn paflesno great complement upon the good 
fenfe of thefe Bifliops. They were men v/ho faw 
things with their own eyes, their leai mng went far- 
ther than Latin^ and they were too well skill'd 
in the art of difputing with the Avians^ to urge a 
Text againll 'em, which had been only found in un- 
faithful Tranflations j and which confequcntly could 
not but have ended in the ihame of thefe Prelates, 
and diihonourof the orthodox dodrine. 

He fupports himfelf with Mr. Slmon\ authority, 
who has faid, ^that fertulUan'mdi^i, Cyprian read the 
'vulgar Copy 'with the People^ which was in ufe in their 
Churches^ hecaufe they could not do otherwife 5 but in 
their Writings they took the liberty to go back to the Or i'* 
ginal^ and tranflate as they thought fit. We have no 
need of Mr. Simon for fuch a trifle j there has been 
no Verfion of the Bible, the terms and fenfe of 
which men have not been at liberty to leave for a 
better, when they had good reafons for fo doing 5 
but this is not the matter we're upon, as I have juft 
now prov'd. 

In the namelefs Differtation^ which Mr. Emlyn now 
fathers, he had pafs'd by the teftimonies of Figilius 
and FiBor Vitenfis : ^ becaufe^ fays he, they wrote long 



* Hift. Crit, des Verfions, c^, 3, ^ Page 19, 

X after 



(40 

after the heats hetween the Arians and Athanafians, and 
when the invafions of the barbarous Nations had thrown 
all into confufion and ignorance. When he had nothing 
but this to take up with in that Dlffertation^ Mr. Em- 
Jyn did well not to fet his name to his performance, no 
body required it of him ; but fince he has refolv'd to 
run the rifque of it, he mull: give me leave to ask 
him v/here he has found the heat of the controverfy 
was over on the fide of the orthodox, whom he calls, 
I know not why, Athanafians^ as the Arians ftyl'd 
'em in contempt : On the other hand, 'twas more 
hot than ever in Africk^ and Africk is the fcene of 
the prefent difpute. I beg like wife he would tell us 
whence he has learnt that the arrival, or as he terms 
it, the invafion o£ the I^andals in Africk^ for 'tis them 
he names the barbarous Nations^ brought confufion 
and ignorance into that country. Confufion and dif- 
order, 'tis certain, were brought- but for ignorance j 
nothing in the world is lefs true. This fell out ac 
the time St. Augufiin^ held his Difpute with Maxi- 
miniis^ an Arian Bifhop ; at this time liv'd Figilius^ 
Vi^or^ and St. Fulgent ius^ who wrote abundance of 
Treatifes againil the Arian Herefy. I juft nam'd 
Fi^ory who for his ihare deferves a Chapter apart. 




Chap, 




(43 ) 

Chap. VIL 
Particular confide rations upon the Afri- 
can Church's Confeffion of Faith ^ re- 
lated by Vidor, Bifhop of Vite, a- 
gainfl the anfwers of Mr. Emlyn. 

|E can't have a more glorious monument to 
prove the paHage in the fifth chapter of 
St. John\ firlt Epiftle was in the old ltd- 

% lick Verfion, than a pubhck and folemn, 
and as I may fay, judiciary Inftrument prefented to 
the King, or his Commiflioners, and put into their 
hands in a full aflembly : An Aft fo authentick, I will 
add too fo extraordinary in icsform, and in all itsc:r- 
cumftances, Divine Providence has preferv'd to us 
in an Original Hillory of that time. This Aft then 
is a Confeflion of Faith, which by the prudent and 
grave advice of divers Prelates, and other perfons of 
underftanding, was drawn up by four Bifhops, cho- 
fen out of all the African Clergy, to be prefented to 
King Hunerick an Avian and perl'ecutor > that it might 
ferve for that Prince, as a Defence and \^indication 
of the Orthodox Faith. The pafTage of St. John^ 
^herc are three in Heaven^ 'wkich hear record^ &c. is 
placed entire in this Confeflion of Faith : It is not 
as it were crept in among others, neither in fuch 
fort that it can hardly be difcern'd there : It flands 
bare-fac'd, and fliews it felf openly, as if alone it 
was to fuilain the main fhock of the difpute. 

I beg leave to rehearfe it here in its full extent, and 
as I have quoted it in the Dijfertation I am now de- 
fending: This repetition will not be unufcful, and 
can't but be fcrviceable to thofe who have not read 
my former Difcouife, andfhall read this. After the 
quotation of divers other palfagcs, 'tis faid. But that 
it may appeart more clear than day-light^ that the God- 

G head 



( 44 ) 

head of the Holy Gbojl is one with the Godhead of the 
■ Father' and the Son^ fee it proved by the tefiimony of the 
Evangelifl St. John, who writes ^thusy there are three 
which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the 
Word, and the Holy Gholl:, and thefe three are 
one. Does the Apoflle fay^ thefe three are not difiinH 
from each other ^ except in the cafe of equality^ or fome 
other great differences that diftinguifh ''em ? In no 
wife J hut he fays^ thefe three are hut one and the 
fame thing. Hi tres unum funt. 

Wherein is this proof defe61:ive in ihewing fully, 
that this famous Text was read in the Bibles of the 
African Churches ? For that's the only thing I am 
to prove at prefent. What would one, or what can 
one defire more ? King Hunerick had enjoin'd the 
Bifhops CO appear within fix months at Carthage 
to difpute there with the Arian Bifhops upon the 
do61:rineof the Trinity, and to come furnifh'd with 
proofs taken all from parages out of holy Scripture. 
The Confeflion of Faith was not drawn up by the Or- 
thodox precipitately and ilightly \ they had fix months 
time allow'd for't 5 four Billiops, Mr. Emlyn fays 
three, but there were four, all nam'd by their names, 
and the titles of their Churches, four Bifhops chofen 
to compile this important piece, threw it into the 
form wherein we now have it. The pious and 
prudent Bifhop of Carthage^ Eugenius^ at the head 
of nine others , prefented it to HunericJ€% Com- 
miflioners in the prefence of the Arian Bifhops : 
The pa(]age of the three witnefTes in Heaven makes 
a notable figure in this Confeflion, which was fub- 
fcrib'd or approved by three or four hundred Bifhops, 
1 have given at large a more particular account of the 
whole in my Critical Differtatlon^ and have there re- 
futed the vain and nice obje6bions of Mr. Simon, 
What remained after this for Mr. Emlyn? The order 
of the difpute lequir'd he fhould oppofe my Argu- 
sxientSj if they were not folid, and endeavour to re- 
eft ablifh 



( 45 } 

eftjiblifli thofe I had defeated: Infleadof thishe com' 
plains, but in vain, of an infinuation in my Differta^ 
tion^ ^ that he had -put by Vi6lor VitenfisV teftimo" 
ny for being a fabulous IVriter : His words were thefe' 
^ What the credit of VidorV Hifiory^ as we have it is} 
I cannot well tell. I know it has found little with 
many^ in relation of firange miracles : And what I 
have (iiid is this, He contents himfelf with faying^ the 
tejiimony of Victor ought not to be of much weighty be^ 
caufe in his Hiftory he has intermixed a recital of cer* 
tain miracles^ that ha'ue more an appearance of fabky 
than an air of truth. Let any one judge, whether 
I have done him wrong. But at the fame time 
Mr. Emlyn complains, 1 have mif-reprefented his 
words J does he not exprefs himfelf in the like man- 
ner concerning Fi5ior's Hillory? ^^ S uppoftng Vidiov's 
relation of that Confcffion of Faith to be truly as we 
have it. This defervcs not that we fhould dwell one 
moment upon it. What follows is more remark- 
able : ^ Ifhew'dj fays he, (to which Mr . M^xim 
has made no reply) that it was no evidence of the cur- 
rent admijfion of that Tcxt^ or of its long fianding j 
and that from the common way^ in that Age and Place^ 
of interpreting the nest verfe.^ in fuch a manner as 
Qould not well confifl with having this "Text alfo in their 
public k Bibles. 

Hereupon, I firll make this obfervation, that 
Mr. E?nlyn^ who would reprefent my DiJJ'ertation as 
a Treatife full of arbitrary Suppoiitions, and void of 
proofs, which, as I have divers times faid, muft be 
proofs of fa6V, produces not one of this kind, but 
perpetually reafons in the air, and draws confcquences 
without any foundation. For I would beg of him 
to tell me, whence he forms this reafoning, that the 
Text in difpute, quoted by an aHembly of Billiops, 
who reprefented ail the Churches of Jfrick.^ was 

??4^?. l5, bfulj Inquiry, ^aie lo. c ^a^e 17. ^ Paie 16. 

G 1 nui; 



(40 

not generally in the Bibles of thofe countries, or that 
'tis no evidence of its long {landing. If he will 
conceit, that thefe Bifhops had neither probity, nor 
honour, nor common fenfe, to urge againft the A- 
rian Bifhops, a novel and unknown Text, or one 
Text for another, the eighth Verfe for the feventh, 
and this in favour of an allegorical explication which 
feme perfons had conceived, and the Avians fcorn'd, 
and the more, becaufe notallegoi'ies and explications, 
but exprefs Texts of Scripture were required j if he 
will conceit, I fay, all thefe things, as he neceflarily 
muft, who gives the fame anfwer with Mr. Emlyn^ 
I own I have not learnt to form phantoms at will, 
nor improve a chimera into a reality. 

I take fads as I find 'em : I find three or four hun- 
dred Bifhops afTembled out of all Africk^ and divers 
other countries, drawing up a confeffion of Faith, 
wherein I fee the pafTage of St. John^ and fee it ap- 
pear too with all the mofl fingular marks of diflin- 
dion : In this quotation I fee the Bibles of thefe 
Bifhops J with the Bibles of thefe Bifhops I fee alfo 
thofe of their Churches and publick performances : 
I fhould think I hadlofl my fenfes, if I went about to 
imagine thefe Manufcript Bibles were lately wrote, 
inflead of being the Bibles of their Predeceflbrs j 
nor fliould I think my mind in a much better flate, 
if I fancy 'd the Avian Bifhops to be men fo eafy to 
be impos'd on, as to be made believe, that there 
was a Text in St. John's Epiflle, which they had 
never feen there, they who, as Erafmus obferves, 
were mightily vers'd in reading the holy Scriptures : 
Thus is my mind form'd, if Mr. Emlyn's is other- 
wife, indeed I don't envy him. 

Non equidem invideo, miror magis — ™ 
In his anonymous treatife he had afferted, ^ that 
this ConfefTion of Faith, related by /^/^or, muftha've 

» Pagi t.i, -l > 

heen 



(47) 

been fome private compofure^ thd* it might be in the 
name of the other Bifiops^ who^ fays he, were fiow 
fcatter'd and banijjyd. But 'tis very likely Mr. Em- 
lyn had never read Fidlor's Hiftory, and that he had 
conceived the matter fo as would be mofl: proper to 
leflcn the authority of that Record. For on the 
contrary, in Fiber's account *ti5 expreflly faid, rhat 
all this great number of Bifhops were afTembled at 
Carthage^ that they chofe ten from among 'cm to 
affift in their name at the Conference, and carry thi- 
ther their Confeffion of Faith > and then he imme* 
diately recounts in the moft affeding manner imagi- 
nable, the infults, cruelties and barbarities of Hune^ 
r/V^againll thefe poor Biihops, who prefentedthem- 
felves in a body before him at the gate of the City, 
after the day of the conference. 

To return to the quotation of the paflage it felf 
in this ConfefTion of Faith : The Text of the 7^^ 
vei'fe is there recited word for word 5 we have feen 
it > however this is not yet fatisfadory to Mr. Emlyn j 
he will have it to be the 8^^ verfe j this fpeaks oi the 
Spirit^ the Water^ and the Blood j the other men- 
tions the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghojl : the 
8^^ verfe fpeaks of three witnejfes in Earth -y the 
quotation of the 7^^ verfe q^ three witnejjes in Hca^ 
ven, Thefe differences are fo fenfible, and make 
fuch an impreffion upon the mind, that 'tis not pof- 
fible to take here the one for the other, the wit- 
nejfes in Heaven^ for thofe of the Earth -^ the Father^ 
the Sorij and the Holy Ghoft^ for the Spirit^ the 
Water ^ and the Blood: But notwithftanding, Mr. 
Emlyn finds that all this is the fame thing. 

But how, will fome one fay, is itpofflblehe fhould 
thus confound matters, which are fo diftind ? It pro- 
ceeds from a flrong notion he can't get rid of, that the 
myflical interpretation ofthe eighth verfe, which fome 
of the Ancients have given in to, allegorically explain- 
ing the word Spirit of the Father, the Water of the 

Holy 



(48 ) 

Holy Ghoil, and the Blood of the Son, is the fame 
with the qaotation of the words of the feventh, 
I'here are three in Heaven^ that bear record^ the Fa- 
ther^ the PFordy and the Holy Ghofi. But if he had; 
a httle more attentively conlider'd what I have faid. 
in my Dijfertation upon this perplexed interpretation 
of the eighth verfe, he would not have rcturn'd to- 
it (o often as he has done in his Anfwer -y but fince 
he is fo fond on'r, 'tis necellary for me to take 
away all danger of his ever deceiving himfelf with 
it again. Firfl, I muft put him in mind, that he has, 
always m'^^icEucherius(^Q2k upon this occalion other- 
wife than he defign'd. Mr. Emlyn^ in his Anony- 
mous performance has made him fay, ^ that this was 
the common expolition of thefe words of the eighth 
-verfe, the Spirit^ the J^Fatcr^ and the Bloody and in 
the Anfwer I am confuting, ^ that this interpretation 
was current and of long ftanding: But St. Eucherius 
neither fays the expolition was ancient, nor com- 
znon. Hie words are, P lures tamen hie ipfam inter- 
pretatione myfticd intelligunt ^rinitatem : i. e. '' Ne- 
*"' verthelefs divers by a myftical interpretation un- 
" derfland it of the Trinity." What is there in all 
this, that Ihews the expolition to have been an- 
cient? Does it fay, this expofition was after the 
prevailing Cuftom of that time, as Mr. Emlyn 
fays ^ in the nineteenth page of his Anfwer ? Does 
the word plures exprefs the fame thing with common^ 
ly and currently? In no wife. But what was the 
expofition which divers gave to thefe words, the 
Spirit^ the Water ^ and the Blood ? One might be^ 
lieve perhaps 'twas the lame St. Auguftin gave 'em 
in his Book againll Maximinus, and which was alfo 
Facundus's, on whofe authority Mr. Emlyn much 
rehes : It was in part, but there is one great differ- 
ence y St. Augujlin and Facundus underftood by the 

* Pag. 30. b Pag, 16. c Pag, 19. 



(49) 

word Spirit^ the perfon of the Father, and by the 
lVatei\ the Perfon of the Holy Gholl j whereas 
thofe whoTTi Eucherius {^ifA^.^ of, meant the .Father 
by the word Water^ and interpreted the word Spi- 
rit of the Holy Ghofb. Aqua Patremindioans^ San- 
:guinc Chriftum demonftrans^ Spiritu 'verb S. Spirit urn. 
This fhews, how fmall a matter thefe refin'd expo- 
fitions of the three witneiles in the eighth verfc 
were, and how little they were current. 

What, is over and above cei tain, iSyih^t no Anan 
would have fliewn any regard to this fort of allego- 
rical expofitions, the produft of pure fancy 5 'twas 
requifite the very perfons of the Trinity Ihould be 
ihewn to them under the proper names of 'Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghoft; This the African Bifhops 
knew very well, and 'twas alfo on this account they 
produc'd, in their Confeffion of Faith, the exprels 
words of St. J-obn^ Inhere are three in Heamn^ that 
hear record^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy 
Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. One of thefe pious 
Bifhops, Vigilius of T'apfum^ of whom I have al- 
ready fpoke fo often, had before tojd the Arians^ in 
urging againft 'em this very paiTage, that themfelves 
Y^^d it in their Bibles : The names of the three perfons y 
;he tells 'em,-^r^ e'vidently fjeivn^ and the nctrme of 
'their Divinity^ 'which is one^ is alfo manifeftly de- 
.cJar'd by thefe; words of the Evangelifi St *]ohn in 
■his Erpiftk. ''There are three^ that hear record in Hea- 
veny the Father y the Wordy and the Holy Ghoft 5 and 
thefe three are one : And fomewhat lower in the fame 
Work, fFhy Do you read what the Evange^ 
lift 5"/. John has fa'idy Three are onCy if you conceive 
there are different natures in the three perfons. 

Upon the whole, thefe words oi VigiUiis to the 

-Atiansy IVhy do you read, i^c. manifellly 

fhcw how much thofe men are deceived, who think 

.the Arians eras'd thefe words of the fcventh verfe 

QUI of St. John\ Epiftle, and that for this reafon 

* they 



( 50 ) 

they arc wanting in divers Manufcripts. 'Tis an 
imputation, which far from being prov'd, is entirely 
deflroy'd by this fole word oi Figilius, who proving 
to them, by this Text the myftery of the Trinity, 
tells 'em theyjread it in their own Bibles > and draws 
thence an argument againft 'em, that in reading it 
they refus'd to embrace the divine Truth contain'd 
in it. 

C HAP. VIII. 

The pcijfages of St. Eucherius, and Saint 
Cyprian defended againfi the Anfwers 
of Mr. Emiyn, whh a recapitulation 
or general conclufion^ concerning the 
citatiom of the Text of St. John, ta- 
ken from the old Italick Verfion. 

T,Eucherius liv'd in great reputation for 
learning and piety in the Ifle of Le- 
rinsj at the fame time Sc. Jerom was yet 

alive in his Monaftery of Bethlehem^ and 

St. Aiiguflin in his Bifhoprick of Hipfo in Afrkk. 
I have given in my Dijfertation the quotation Eu- 
cherius has made of the paiFage of St. John in his 
Treatife de formulis Spiritualibus. This quotation 
by fo w^orthy a man, and a contemporary of St. Au* 
guflin and St. Jerom^ has given Mr. Emlyn exceflive 
trouble 5 he faw the confequence, but was not fo 
happy as to follow and embrace it. He had faid in 
his anonymous Difcourfe, ^ That St. Auguflin, Eu- 
cherius, and Cerealis, of the fame Country^ and in 




» Full Enquiry, vc pag. lu 

the 



( 51 ) 

the fafne yf^e^ knew- not this Texti And in tJicfe 
few words he had fallen into two egregious errors j 
the one, in faying theie Bifhops were all of the 
fame Country : St. AuguHin and Cerealis liv'd in 
Africk^ and were Bilhops there : St. Euchcrius liv'd 
in France in the Monallery of Lm;^;, and was after- 
ward Bifhop o^ Lyons. The other mi (lake is in fay- 
ing Eiicberius knew not this Text : I pafs'd over 
the former fault, not confining my felF, as I have 
fud above, to follow him dole j but for the fecond 
I confuted it in mv Dif/ertation^ and quoted there 
a palTage from Eucherius^ wherein he recites this 
Text : This is pofitive. How does he extricuce 
himfelf from this affliir ? We fliall fee, by the man* 
ner Mr. Emlyn is here caught, that inllead of fin- 
cerely enquiring after truth, and embracing it when 
laid before him, he ufes his utmoll effort to wreft 
and evade it. 

Fnit, he fays that this quotation ^ concerns only 
the fifth Century^ in "which pojfihly the "words might 
become "text in the Epiftle of St. John. 'Tis theri 
upon a pojjihility this argument turns j a very un* 
Heady fupport : but was not this alfo the i^ge of 
St. Angufiin^ and in part of St. Jerom ? And if this 
Text had been quoted by St. Auguftin^ or St. Jerom 
had alledg'd it in fome of his Works, would he rejefl: 
the quotations of thefe two Ancients upon pretence, 
that they liv'd in the fifth Century? 1 am per* 
fuaded he would not > for from the humour I fee 
him in, no Age will Itop him j and if he had no- 
thing to urge againft that, he would mod certainly 
invent other reafons either againft the work, from 
whence the quotation would he taken > or the terms, 
wherein 'tv.^ould be exprefs'd, were they the very 
words of the feventh verfe j as we have feen in the 



H cafe 



( J\) 

cafe of the Confeffion of Faith drawn up by the 
Jfrican Bifhops. 

We mull however fay here in honour of his judg- 
ment, that he has percciv'd the weaknefs of this 
firfl: Jnfwer^ and therefore not daring to rely upon 
it, has fought out for another^ wherein he keeps 
himfelf clofe, after having attempted to form around 
it the flrongeft fence he was able. In this paOage 
of St. Eucherius^ he found both the verfes of the 
fifth chapter of St. John's Epiille, the feventh and 
eighth, recited one after the other, and has hence 
infer'd the paillige might polfibly be faulty, becaufe 
the joining together of the two verfes in one quo- 
tation feem'd to him wholly fingular. From this 
firfl: very curious obfervation he has pafs'd on to a 
reflexion he appears to be well fatisfy'd with, viz* 
it being fure, according to him, that the eighth 
verfe was at that time conftantly us'd in proof of 
the Trinity, 'tis not natural to fuppofe the words of 
the feventh verfe fhould be us'd withal 5 but that in 
procefs of time, he knows not when, nor mud we 
ask him, fome body having found this pailage in 
fome private Bible, had unadvifedly added it to 
St. Eucherius's Work. Be it fo! Who will fay 
after this that Mr. Emiyn has not skill in forming 
Syftems of Criticifm ? Here's one of his making, 
tiiat would be entirely pcrfedir, was not the whole 
a mere fidion. 

In advancing that a pafTage of any ancient Author 
whatfoever is alcer'd in the quotations, 'tis not 
enough to fay in general, that many faults have been 
obferv'd in the Manufcript. The Arian Sandius 
would by this means get off from the paflage of 
St. Cyprian concerning the Text in St. John's Epi- 
llle, and Mr. Emlyn urges the fame reafoning againfl 
the piiilage of St. Eucherius j but no Critick or 
Man of Letters has any regard to fuch an obferva- 
tion. The Text may be faulty in divers places of 

one 



( 53 ) 

one or more Manufcripts, without being fo in ano- 
ther place 5 there is no confequenceto be drawn from 
the one to the other. To do the bufinefs effeclual- 
Iv, he mud prove either that the particular place 
in diipute is not in the Manufcript Copies, or thi^t 
"l!s not fo largely fct down there as in the printed 
Editions Nor will this always fuffice, for an Edi- 
tion may be made from fuch a Manufcript as con- 
tain'd in it all that is printed, tho' the whole be 
not found in divers others. And this is the cafe 
of that very inflance Mr. Emlyn produces to fhcw 
thcfe words of the feventh verfe, T'bere are three 
that bear record in Hea'ven^ ccc. might be there an 
interpolatioji, and not originally infertcd by St. Eu- 
cheriiis, ^ This^ fays he, was but natural-, and I 
underftand this is the Cafe in a like inftance with 
Bede'i Cornments on the eighth lerfe -, There are 
three that bear record, the Water, Blood and Spi- 
rit : For fo I am informed the Manufcripts ^/Bede's 
JVorks have it^ whereas in the printed Editions the 
words^ in terra, ^' in earth f are added. J have 
nothing to fay againfl: the information he has re- 
ceiv'd, but I'm very fure that 'twas not' given in 
rhofe general terms Mr. Emlyn has exprefs'd him- 
felf, / am informed the Manufcripts of Bcde'^ Works 
have not thefe words j he fhould have faid fome 
Manufcripts. But My. Emlyn faw this would do him 
no fervice, becaufe it does not follow that one or 
more pafTages are interpolations in the printed Books 
which have 'em, from their being omitted in fome 
Manufcripts, the words in terra are in an old Ma- 
nufcript o^ Bede belonging to the Library of Utrecht : 
I havefeen 'em there with my own Eyes. 

To go higher : Mr. £;^;/)« grounds his conjedture, 
that the Text of the feventh verfe is an interpola- 
tion in St. Eucherius upon this, that the eighth 

f Pa^. to. 

H z verfe 



(54) 

i^crfc was very commonly urg'd in proof of tbe my* 
ilery of the Trinity; this is a miiiake he perpetU" 
ally makes, and brings in upon all occafions : I have 
ihewn it to be fo 5 and he miifl be delighted with 
it beyond all imagination, if yet he refufes to 
abandon it. He has withal fuffet'd himfelf to be 
imposed on in his firfl: difcovery, in believing it a 
iingularity in this pafTage of St. Eucherius^ that both 
the feventh and eighth verfes are found there to- 
gether. If he had read the fpurious Decretals of 
Jfidorus Mercator^ he would have found 'em both 
twice quoted in the Decretal of Pope Hyginus^ which 
I had refer'd to, pag. ^i. and in that 0/ Pope 5*eZ?/^ 
the W. He will tell me, thefe Decretals are far 
more modern than the time Eucherius liv'd in. 
I know it, but thefe Decretals, as fpurious as they 
are, in being attributed to thofe Popes, are yet very 
ancient, as 1 have obferv'd after the moll learned 
Criticks among both Proteftants and Papifls. And 
then, what is it to the quotation of two pafHiges 
together, whether 'tis more ancient, or more mo- 
dern ? What llrikes with Mr. Emlyn^ and ferves to 
^ti out his remark, is, that he does not compre- 
hend how any who had before 'em the Text of the 
feventh verfe, wherein the three Perfons of the Ho- 
ly Trinity are exprefs'd by their own names, fhould 
go about to quote along with fo formal a Text the 
words of the eighth verfe, which can only be apply'd 
to the Trinity allegorically, and by a myftical ex- 
pofition- Whether Mr. Emlyn conceives or not 
how this could poffibly be, is a matter we have no 
concern in > the fa6i: remains notwithftanding, and 
the inltance of the two Decretal Letters do's not 
allow us to doubt of it. 

I will fay farther, and 1 have referv'd this obfer- 
vaiion for the laft, which rnufl entirely difconcert 
Mr. Emlyn's whole machine, that he has not confi- 
a^fi^^ that the myllery of the Trinity is in no wife 

the 



( 5J) 

the fubjeft treated of in the pafTage of St. Eucherius, 
'Tis true, we there read thefe words, ad Trinitatem^ 
which in their primary notion fignify, as to the 'tri- 
nity^ but here they are taken in a quite different 
fenfe, and to denote the number three, as we fhould 
fay, as for the number three. We muft know then, 
St. Eucherhis purposed in the chapter, wherein thefc 
are read, to make fome fmall obfervations upon di- 
vers numbers exprefs'd in Scripture. He begins with 
one^ and lays it has refpeiSi: to the Unity of God, up- 
on which he quotes feveral pafTages, wherein there 
is, God is one. He comes next to the number twoy 
and finds for this number the two Tables of the Law, 
the two Cherubim, l^c. He goes on, and coming to 
the number three, 'tis there he fays, ad Trinitatem\ 
and upon this number he produces the two pafTages of 
Si.Johrj^ becaufe the number three is exprefs'd in 
both, three witneiTes in Heaven, and three witnefles 
in Earth, and the three Vine-branches, Gen. 40. ii. 
From the number three he pafTes to four^ and fo on 
to others. The Pubhck will be much fiirpriz'd to 
fee a man of Letters, a Writer of Critical Differta- 
tions^ fatiguing himfelf 'till he fweats, as I may fay, 
water and blood after an imaginary difficulty, a Phan- 
tom which flics upon fight, and difappears at the 
bear reading St. Eucherius's pafTage. As for my part, 
'tis all one to me for what ends, and upon what oc- 
cafion he has quoted it, fince I draw my proof from 
this only, that being taken from the Italick Verfion, 
for Eucherius us'd no other, it follows that this paf- 
fage was in that Verfion in the time of Si.Jerom^ as 
we have feen it there towards the clofe of the fifth 
Century, in the Writings of Figilius^ St. Fulgent ius^ 
and olhtr African Bifhops. 

From the quotation of St. Eucherius I went back- 
wards to St. Cyprian^ who had even in the third Cen- 
tury recited this Text in his Difcourfe of the Unity of 
the Church, I had treated this matter at large from 

the 



( 5n 

the 79^^ to the 87^^ page of my Dijfertation^ where 

1 had examined and confuted all the falfe argun:ients 

of Mr. Simon and others againft this pafliige. Mr. Em- 

lyn makes no reply to this, but as if I had but bearly 

touch'd upon it, he triumphs in fuch wife for his 

having fo well explain'd St. Cjf/>W^?2's meaning, that 

he wonders I fhould again bring him back upon the 

board. If any one will give himfelf fuch mighty 

airs of fufiiciency, he ought to have more reafon for't 

than Mr. Emlyn has here. If I had barely recited 

St. Cy/'ri^w'steftimony, without taking notice of the 

evafions which he and Mr. Simon^ and fuch others 

had invented to enervate the force of this teilimony, 

he might have grounds for his prefumption, and for 

faying he had fo folidly eftablifh'd his caufe, that we 

mud; no more cite again St. Cyprian -y but far from 

this, I have evidently fhewn the force of this tcfli- 

mony, and have fet it above all exception : In this 

flate it Hill remains, fince Mr. Emlyn has thought 

himfelf too weak to renew the attack, and wreft 

him from us j I fubmit my felf to the judgment of 

every Reader, who fhall take the pains to compare 

our Books together. 

'Tis pretended, that when St. Cyprian faid in his 
Trcatife of the Unity of the Church, Jgain^ it is 
written of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofiy 
that thefe three are one^ he had refpe61: to the Spirit^ 
the Water^ and Blood of the 8^^' f. of which it is 
alfo faid, and thefe three are one > but inftead of gi- 
ving the proper terms of this Text, which are the 
Spirit^ the Water and the Bloody he only had 'em 
in view, and contented himfelf with giving their Sig- 
nification, which is faid to be that of the Father^ 
Son^ and Holy Ghofi. Without repeating here what 
I have objeded to this very fingular pretence, I 
would ask whether any thing is found in St. Cyprian 
which may have given place to't j for if nothing be 
found, 'twill be mere fancy and imagination to afcribe 

to 



(57) 

to him a meaning which no one can fhew he ever 
had -, now 'tis certain there is nothing like this in 
St. Cyprian. *Tis true, iay they, but Facnndiis two 
hundred Years after him undcrllood him in chisfenre. 
But has Facundiis prov'd what he fays ? He has only 
laid it, and that's all. In truth, 'tis to make a bad 
ureofreafon entirely to acquiefce in the bare ipfe dixit 
oF any perfon whatfoever, unlefs we believe him infal- 
lible, and he is alfo believ'd fuch by thofc upon whom 
this ipfe dixit is magillerially impos'd. Is it well then 
to aitlx afenfe to "St. Cyprian's words, which no one 
dare fiiy they naturally and of themfelves have, upon 
the bare imagination of one man, I will not fay who 
liv'd two hundred Years after him, but who was his 
contemporary, anJ. if they pleafe, his SuccefFor in 
the See of Carthage ? We have feen how the lear- 
ned and pious Figilius^ Bifhop of T^apfum^ urg'd 
againil the Avians^ that St. John do's not only fay 
there were three, but afcribes to every one of thefe 
three his dillin61: name, the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghofl : Let us here again repeat the very words of 
that ancient Biihop : St. John has exprejjfly mentioned 
the names of the perfons and their Unity in the God- 
head^ when he faid in his Epiftle^ fhere are three that 
hear record in Heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the 
Holy Ghofl ^ and thefe three are one. St. Cyprian had 
faid in like manner, 'Tis written of the Father^ the 
Son.^ and the Holy Ghofl ^ that thefe three are one. Can 
, any thing be more alike than thefe two pafTages of 
St. Cyprian znd PI gili us ? ^liunum novit^ ambos no- 
verit'y who fees one, fees the other alfo. In Figilius 
'tis the Text of the feventh verfe, and it fhall not be 
fo in St. Cyprian^ tho' there is nothing in all the Dx- 
Icourfe wherein thefe words are found, nor in any 
other place throughout the Writings of this holy 
Bifhop and Martyr, which takes 'em away from the 
fame verfe Figilius had in view, to transfer 'em to 

another. 



(58) 

another, where the names of the three perfons in 
the Godhead are not fpecify'd. 

I was about to put an end to this fubjeft, and 
draw my conclufion from the great number of au- 
thorities which 1 have produced to fhew the Text 
of the three witnefles in Heaven was in all Ages in 
the Ifalick Verfion j when taking again in hand the 
anonymous Dijfertation^ I found there two things 
concerning the quotation of St. Cyprian^ which are 
certainly of a very fingular chara6ter. As I made 
no account of 'em when I wrote my DiJJertation^ I 
left 'em quietly to their Author \ but at prefenr, be- 
caufe Mr. Emlyn^ who lays hold of every advantage, 
would perhaps imagine I could not anfwer 'em, I 
find my felf under a fort of neceffity to fpeak my 
Opinion. 

The firft of thefe is what he fays, Page ii. that 
no one could fhew Sr. Cyprian had a particular Copy 
of St. John's Epiftle, wherein the Text of the fe- 
venth verfe was. The challenge is extraordinary, 
Mr. Emlyn may be well aflur'd no one will offer to 
accept it, /. e. to prove to him what Manufcripts 
of the New ^eflament St. Cyprian had ; but if he 
means only here of fliewing that this holy Bifhop 
had the common Bible of all the Churches of his 
time, that will be by no means difficult. I fhall be 
anfwer'd : This is not precifely what he demands j 
he requires it (hould be prov'd to him, that the fe- 
venth verfe of St. John was in the Copy St. Cy- 
prian us'd. If this is the fenfe of his queilion, why 
do's he talk of z particular Copy, fincethis would be 
vi(ibly to make a captious and deceitful challenge, 
in that it would give out the Copy, wherein this 
Text was, would be a particular or fingular Copy, 
different from others. The great proof a pafTage is 
in a Book, is the quotation of it by a Writer of 
known honour and probity. St. Cyprian has given 

us 



( T9 ) 

iis the words of the fevcnth verfc, this vcrfc v/a3 
then in St. Cyprian's Bible. 

The iecond thing the anonymous Writer had ad- 
vanced againft St Cyprian's quotation, was, that ii 
could not refpect the feventh verfc as it ftands in the 
Bibles, becaufe in the Bibles the z'^ vvitncfs is nam'd 
Verhum^ or the IVord\ whereas in St. Cyprian he is 
call'd the Son^^ for tho' in the main 'tis the fame 
thing, yet the letter of the Text is not foUow'd, as 
it ou^o^ht to be in n quotation. I own, 1 was lo much 
difguitcd with thefe triflles, that judging 'em not 
Wvjrthy of a grav^e and ferious man, fuch as a Critick 
ought to be^ I thought it not worth while to fpeak 
of 'cm ; but fince we are here engng'd, we'll difpatch 
this affair in a few words. 

I fay then, fi rll, that the quotation of St. John^ 
pafTage in St. Cypuan^ properly dehgns to fpcak on- 
ly of the lafl; words, tbc/'e thee are one j the Father^ 
the Son, and the Holy Gholl are nam'd there merely^ 
becaufe thcfe words bear relation to them. Second- 
ly, Tho' it fhould be true^ that this w?.s equally a 
quotation of the three perfons, and of their Uniry^ 
Mr. Emlyn's objection, taken from St. Cyprian's fay- 
ing the Son^ inltead of the ivord Koyog^ as it is in 
the Text of St. John^ would come to nothing, for 
he mult be much a Stranger to the writings of the 
ancient Fathers, who has not obferv'd that in their 
quotations of a Text of Scripture, they often put 
one word for another of the fame fenfe j inllantesof 
this kind we have in St. Hilary^ who m the Icven- 
tecnth verfeofthe fixth chapter of the firll: Epiltleto 
iht Corinthians'^ has the word Godm^czd oi Lord ^ 
in St. Leo^ who inftead of the word G/ory has wrote 
Majejiy^ l Cor. 2, 8. in St. Cyprian himielf very 
frequently} thus St. Luke 2. ii. he has ^uijefiis 
Chnft for Chrift the Lord > in St. 'John 3. if. he has 
faid, that ivhofoever believeth on the Son^ for "whofo-* 
fQsv^r kdmith m himj as it is in the Greek > in 

I t Cor. 



( 6o ) 

I Cor. ch. 7. y. "^z. the Greek reads, how he may 
pleafe the Lord -, St. Cyprian^ bow be may pleafe God, 
'Tis tiiefome to dwell upon fuch obiervations : To 
quit 'cm then, and come to fomewhat more ferious, 
and moie worthy the important Ribjed: we are upon. 

I have prov'd by indilputable authorities, that the 
Text oF the fcventh verfe of the fifth chapter of 
St.Jobn's firfl: Epiflle, was always in the old Italkk 
Veriion, as before I had fhewn it was in the Verfion 
revis'd by St. Jerom : From all this I at prefent draw 
this conclufion with regard to the Itnlick Verfionj 
that fince all the monuments of this ancient Tranfla- 
tion we have extant in the Writings of the Fathers, 
agree in giving us this pallage, 'tis as much, and 
even more, than if we had the Bibles of thofe 
Ages. We might have fome few of 'em without 
having a great number 5 four or five Copies wrote 
in Ages fo remote, would at this day be one of the 
molt valuable treafures in Libraries : and if we found 
'em all agree in having the pailage in St. John's Epi- 
Itle, fo highly would their agreement be cried up, 
that we fhould look on thofe men, and with reafon 
too, as head-flrong and obllinate, who fiiould op- 
pofe fo prefTmg a teftimony. But tho' we have not 
thefe Manufcripts of the whole Epiflle of St.Job^j 
we have 'em at leaft fo far as concerns the difputcd 
paflage, 'tis in the quotations of the Fathers, and 'tis 
there as a fentcnce engraven in brafs or marble. Nor 
are thefe quotations two or three, which in the cafe 
of this Text are to us inftead of perfed Manufcripts 
of the Epiltle or the Bible j we have 'em in France 
and Jfrick^ i, e. in the Well: and South. Nor have 
they been made and jcopied one from the others, 
nor are they in Manufcripts thrown into certain cor- 
ners of private houfes 3 they are Manufcripts which 
belong'd to theBilliops, to Bifhops who were famous 
for their zeal and orthodoxy. The number of 'em with- 
al is not fmallj not two, nor three, norfour j we have 

thar 



that of St. Cyprian^ that of Eucherius^ thofe of PI- 
gilius and St. Fidgcntius^ for their names are come to 
our knowledge. To thefe we may join the Manu- 
fcripts of the four yf/;7V^/7 Bifhiops who drew up the 
Confeflionof Faith of all theChurchcs intheirCoun- 
try, from the Manufcripts of their Bibles > their 
names alfo are known to us, and thus we have eight 
plainly notify'd. ThetenBilliops, \j\^\\ ^i. Eugenius 
their Patriarch at the head of them, wcreable to prove 
to the Ariam by their Bibles, the authentickncfs of 
the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven, which 
ftands fo admirably dillinguifh'd in then- Confcilion : 
Laflly, The three or four hundred other Bifhops of 
Africk^ Sardinia^ Cor fie a^ and the Bakarick I (lands, 
who all fubfcrib'd, was it only by their prefence, to 
this Confefllon of Faith which ten of 'em had prc- 
fented to Hunerick j where have we ever feen at 
once fo many witnefTes, and fo authentick depofiti- 
ons for the certainty of a fa6l ? Now 'tis purely a fa6t 
which is here concern'd, viz. whether this parage 
was, or was not in the old //^//V/^ Bible ? 'Twas there 
then, and this truth remains clearly demonitrated : 
Mr. Emlyn has taken care not to touch upon it, his 
filence gives victory to my proof But I am now 
about to carry the matcer yet farther, and confute 
him from his own principles. 

We have ^<icn with what vivacity and confidence 
he has cmbrac'd the project of the learned Dr. Bent" 
ley concerning the ancient Copies of St. Jerom's Bi- 
ble. One would fiy, feeing the flattering hopes 
he has conceived merely becaufe he eafily entertains 
any thing in his favour j that the paflage which fo 
flrangelydifpleales him was not found in thofe anci- 
ent Manufcripts: but upon this very principle, Ihould 
all thefc twenty Manufcripts of Dr. Benttey happen 
to agree in having this Text, Mr. Emlyn might ne- 
ceflariiy conclude with this celebrated Dcdor, thac 
the Greek Copies which were extant at the time 

la" ^'Su 



(6r ) 

Sx-Jerom made bis revife by the Greek^ bad the fame 
pailage. I fubfcribe, for my part, to the Doflor's 
Thelis, and for this once, at lead, M:-. Emiyn and I 
(liall be found to have the fame fentiments : The 
misfortune is, we fha'n't long continue fo. The 
agreement of the Manufcripts we both fay with 
Dr. Bentley^ will be a proof that this Text was for- 
merly in the Greek : This agreement is found exaft, 
as I have juft prov'd in the Manufcripts of the Jta- 
lick Verfion • This Text then which is thus difputed, 
was in the Greek of that Verfion. The firft propo- 
rtion of this argument is both Mr. Emlyn's and mine, 
the fecond has an entire proof in the quotations of 
the Fathers 3 and their quotations, as to this parti- 
cular paflage, are the Manufcripts of their Bibles : 
The confequence is certain, this paflage was then in 
X\\Q. Greek Manufcripts. 

tliMMMU^/Ji lMM:A^/;£^yJiM IJ'/JiMM^'JMJ. ^/^^/i^W^^AM 

Chap. IX. 

Contar/img fome general confideraUom re* 
lating to the Greek Manufcripts^ in 
confutation of thofe of Mr. Emlyn. 

His chapter is but preliminary, before I 
enter upon the particular difcuffion of the 
Greek Manufcripts, I produc'd for the au-» 
thenticknefs of the Text of the ApoUle 
Si. John, This fubje6t being perfedly critical, proofs 
of fa6t are here more neceflary than ever. 

The firft I made ufe of in the eighth chapter^ 
wa5 one of thofe proofs, which tho' indire£b, ard 
yet extremely folid, as being confequences drawn 
from certain and indifputable principles. Such is for 
|nl]:a4iC£ the c^ncluiion I made in the foregmg chap«^ 

■ ' ■ -' ter^ 




(^3 ) 

tcr, taken from the Italick Bibles, and their agrec- 
rnent upon this Text, recited by the great number 
of Authors I quoted. Such was withal the revifc 
Sr. Jerohi made of the Books of the Neiu Tejlament 
towards the clofe of the fourth Century j for this re- 
vife being properly no other than the Italick Verfion 
purg'd frorr^ the faults which had crept into it, and 
coric6led by the Greeks and this pafTage being con- 
flantly found in his Bible, as I have largely prov'd, 
the confequence is here again perfedly jull 5 this paf- 
fage then was in the Greek Copies. 

A thi;d confequence like the former, was that I 
drew [rom the revife which Alcuinus^ and fome other 
IcuiOed men had made of the Manuscripts of Suje- 
rom^s^Sit in the eighth Century. I had faid thefe 
Jeav led men could not have poffibly made this revife 
T ; h honour, and agreeable to the will of Charles 
ttJt Great^ who underllood Greek very well himfelf, 
without having before 'em the New Tejiament in 
Greek^io confult it> efpecially upon the places, where- 
in the Latin Copies might differ from them, or dif- 
agree among themfelves : From whence it follows, 
that the Text of the feventh verfe being plac'd in 
their B ble, revis'd and corrected, they mull necef- 
farily have found it in the Greek Manufcripts. I 
don't believe we can form, upon a queftion of facl, 
rcafonings better connedled, nor draw confequences 
more juit. If Mr. Emlyn has found either that the 
fuds exprefs'd in all this are not true, or that being 
true, we can't reafonably deduce from 'em thefe con- 
fequences, he could not do better than by fliewing it, 
and this he muil necelHirily doj but he has not done 
either the one or the other: He anfwers nothing to 
;he point of the Italick Verfion, nor upon the cor- 
rection made by St. Jerom^ nor the confequences 
drawn from thefe two fads j fo that thefe two firfl 
proofs remain in their full force. And yet Mr. E??!- 
/;« has been fo bad a manager of his exprcffions as 

to 



{64) 

to fay upon this occafion, ^ that I advance fo man^ 
things with fuch undaunted confidence and pofitive affu- 
ranee J that if it be found I have [aid 'em without 
truth and evidence^ he thinks it will not gain my 
Work any credit in the end^ tho"* it may ft agger the un- 
learned Reader at firfi. Truly , I believe , they 
are not the Readers he intitles ignorant or unlearned^ 
who have been convinced of the force and evidence 
of my proofs, but Gentlemen of the Clergy oi- Eng- 
land^ and other learned men, who have read 'em 5 
for thefe are more capable to penetrat' ^o the bot- 
tom of things, and have infinirch more tafte for 
mattersofCnticifm and Learning, as this is, (^^ hich 
is in djvers places found burden'd ^ith dry and knot- 
ty Criticifm) than the ordinary Readers, whoie whole 
capacity is confin'd w.thm the bounds of good fenfe. 
Howeyer, 'twas Mr. Emlyn's part to fink the reputa- 
tion of thofe things which he afTertsI havefaid with 
ib much prefumption, without truth and evidence. 

To judge yet bttter of the perplexity he is in, let 
us hear what he fays concerning the inference taken 
from the Corre6lors employ'd by Charles the Great, 
And indeed^ fays he, if we muft not doubt of their ha- 
'ving fuch Manufcripts^ (viz. Greek Manufcripts,) 
j3or that they exactly corn fled the Latin by ''em in eve- 
ry place they differ d^ nor that they really put this Text 
in their Bibles j then the work is done^ if we may real- 
ty doubt nothing : But is there fo much as one of 
thefe things whereof we can doubt after the reafons 
i have given ? Let us hear him yet again, Mr, Mar- 
tin knows thefe things arc doubted \ juft on the con- 
trary, I know very well they are certain, and \ my 
felf have prov'd 'em effedually. 

As the flrongefl prejudice againfl: the pafTage I 
defend, is deriv'd from the want of it in molt of 
the Greek Manufcripts, the matter is pufh'd fo far 



(^5) 



as to maintain that 'tis in none. I firR- opposed to 
th s Mr. S'mon'^ own conteflion, who has exprcllly 
fa.u, that this pafHige ^ is iri very few Greek Copies -y 
and a little a-ter, it is not in the moft part of 
the Greek Copies ; and again, 'tis only in the moft 
modern Greek Mmufcripts. Without naming the 
Libraries, and marking thefe Manufcripts by their 
numbers, and fuch other particular diftinilions, one 
C'^uld not fay more exprcflly, that this paflage is 
certainly in fome Copies or Greek Manufcripts. 
Mr. Simon who wrote againfl; this p^Hage, and lets 
up in all his Works for a man who had fcarch'd 
into the mod valuable Libraries, could not more 
expreflly avow it, and I think one might very well 
conclude from thence, as I have done, ^PVell then ! 
tho* 'tis not in the generality of 'em^ tho' 'tis hut in 
a fevj^ yet 'tis in fome of 'em. Mr. Emlyn who ab- 
folutely denies it to be in any of 'em, afTerts that: 
my confecjuence is not juft, for^ fays he, F. Sim.on 
never intended hereby to fay it ivas in any, and this 
becaufe Mr. Simon has retratled it in a Letter he 
afterwards wrote to one of his Friends, to whom 
he faid he had not found this Text in any Manu- 
fcript. Mr. Simon was a man with whom yes or no 
were almoii: the fame thing, according as particular 
views led him to fay the one or the other : But whan 
is here very remarkable, is^ that all thefe fo frequent- 
ly reiterated declarations, which we find in his Hi- 
llory of the Verfions of the New I'eftament^ are not 
words which might drop from him, and which re- 
quired not his particular attention. Fie faid, or vv^rote 
*em, one while in a fort of quarrel he had with the 
Lutherans concern mg this paflage.^ tho'^ fxys he, 
they add a remaik upon the [event h verfe of the fifth 
C/Jjpter of St. John's firft Epiftle^ they had not ac- 
quahjted their Readers^ that this verfe is in very few 
**" '" " " ■ ■' ■■*■ >' ■ ' 

* Hill, uc Verf. if), ii\ x6. i8. *> Fa^e 53, 



( 66 ) 

of the Greek Copks : At anothef time, *tis in mak- 
ing a remark of his own head upon the Coptick 
Manufcripc of the New Tefiament^ which he fays 
is in the King's Library 5 wherein the teftimony of 
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoil is wan- 
ting in St. John's Epiflle, in like manner as in the 
moji part of the Greek Manufcripts \ and laftly, in 
critizing upon Walton^ becauie that in his Prolego* 
mena to the Polyglott^ printed in England^ he had 
pretended to prove the antiquity of the Arabick and 
Syriack Ferfions^ from the feventh yerfe of the fifth 
chapter of St. John's firfiEpifl/ey which is not in thtofe 
^ranjlations , No more thanin the old 
Gr£ek Manuscripts. 

C H A P. . X. 

The Manufcripts ^/ Laiirentiiis Valla, 
in favour of St. Jobn'^ P^JT^K^y ^^^ 
the Codex Britannicus, or of Erafmus, 
in behalf of the fame fuhfeB defended 
againfi the anfwer of Mr. Emlyn. 

FT E R having defended the general proofs 
I produc'd to fliew the dilputed pafTage 
has from its original been in the Greek of 
1^1 Su John's Epiltle, I defcended to parti- 
cular proofs, and have fpecify'd divers famous Ma- 
riufcripts wherein this Text is found. The Lear- 
lied, who in our Age have doubted of the authen* 
ticknefs of this paffage, or who have openly declar'd 
againft it, have been fomewhat referv*d touching 
the Greek Manufcripts which have it not. Mr. Em^ 
lyn^ more daring than them all, fays and repeats ifi 
an hundred times, that there is mi (q much as one 

whicl3? 




(67) 

ivhich has it ; and his courage increafing with his 
Zeal, he afTerts that no perfon ever faw any Manu- 
fcript wherein it was, nor is there any who fays he 
read it in one. This is what's call'd to fpeak fure, 
to put on a decidve air, and cut the knot. He 
found in my Differtatiun^ that I had faid, after a 
thoufand others, who have wrote upon this fubje£t 
before mc, that Laurent ius Valla^ a Nobleman of 
Rome^ and h learned Man, had near three hundred 
years ago divers Greek Manufcripts, wherein this 
paflage was: As Mr. Simon had confin'd it to fome 
few oF the modern Manufcripts, I took occafion 
from Valla\ Manufcripts to fay, they might then be 
three or four hundred years old \ and 1 think that 
fuppofition was reafonable enough : I am not oblig'd 
to defend it, becaufe the main of the difpute is not 
conccrn'd in't, and 'tis only a fmall incident in rela- 
tion to what Mr, Simon had advanc'd concerning the 
little antiquity of the Manufcripts wherein this Text 
is read. This hov/ever has drawn upon me from 
Mr. Emlyn this little ftroke of haughtinefsj 1 dare 
fay^ ^ this Gentleman knows nothing of the matter^ 
but /peaks all upon fancy and guejs. He adds, if any 
one imagines 1 have got Laurentius Valla\ Manu- 
fcripts in my poflcffion, or at lead, that 1 have fecii 
'em fully : I Jh all tell 'em^ that neither I^ norariyman 
elfe that I know of^ has either feen Valla'j Manufcripts^ 
or knows what is become of 'cm. Mr. Emlyn joins all 
this together, as if 'twas in my Dif/'ertation^ or that 
I had laid thefe laft words with the fame view, and 
upon the fime occafion as I did what concerns the 
antiquity of Falla's Manufcripts : The matter is how- 
ever quite ocherwife j thofc who defire to be fa- 
tisfy'd, need but confult the eighth and eleventh 
chapters. But thefe are fuch trifles, as don't defervc 
to beanfwer'd,and which 1 highly dc.pife. I come now 



K to 



( ^8 ) 

to the fa61:, and beg every judicious Reader to attend^, 
and I'll endeavour to give him fatisfadion. 

Many perfons have fpokc of thefe Manufcripts of 
Falla 'y Edtvard Ley is the, firil, at leaft that I know 
of, who urg'd 'em in favour of the pafTage in Saint 
John's EpilUe, in the accufation he brought againfl 
Erafmus^ for having omitted it inhisEditions of the 
New Tejiamefit in Greek^ in if 16, and if ip. Eraf- 
mus anfwers only in an indired manner, and both 
Ley's allegation, and Erafmus's reply concerning 
thefe Manufcripts are fo general, that nothing very 
clear or exprefs can be gathered from 'em. Since 
this difpute of Ley with Erafmus^ fev/ have wrote 
upon this Subjed, without mentioning Laurentius 
Valla's Copies j but I dare fliy moft of 'em have on- 
ly fpoke after others : I have not been fo happy as to 
have found one who has given a particular account 
of this matter, and clear'd it up \ however, 'tis a 
bufinefs worth ones while, and ftands thus. 

Laurentius Valla was, about the middle of the 
fifteenth Century, the firil: man of Letters who had 
the noble curio (ity to colle6l: the Greek Manufcripts 
of the New Tefiament. As the Latin Copies of 
Sl.Jero7n''s Vulgar Bible were then only in ufc, this 
learned man had a mind to compare that Vcrfion 
with the Greek^ which to him feem'd faulty in many 
refpeds. The deiign was daring for the time he 
liv'd in, becaufe of the great prejudice^ men labour'd 
under in favour of the vulgar Latin^ which prevail'd 
but too much in the following Age, and could noc 
yet be entirely deO;roy'd, what light foever we have 
had fince» I dare not give out for certain, that the 
induftrious art of Printing was then known, when 
Valla undertook the work we fpeak of j he faw that 
wonderful art in its birth, but the beginnings of it 
were fo flow and fmall, that there came not out in 
his time fo much as one edition of the New Tefta- 
mmt in Greek, There being then none but Greek 

Maau- 



i^9) 

Mnnufcripts extant in his time, whereby he might 
make his Collations of the Lathi with the Greek-, he 
-Colle6ted all of this fort he could find; the number 
was not great, 'tis faid to be fez'eN -, I have faid it al- 
fo 'y but Mr. Emlyu will not allow mc this fmall 
number, and oppofes to me upon this head Dr.MilL 
^ Dr. Milly fays he had only three Greek Manu- 
fcripts^ Air, Martin fays feven. The word only is 
Mr. Emlyn's^ who is wont to diminifh or heighten the 
mofl part of his quotations by fome fuch fmall turn, 
but always to his own advantage. Y)\\ Mill fays 
barely, that Laurentius Valla collated three Greek 
Copies with three Latin ones j and this is true, for 
Laurentius Valla himfelf fays it in his note upon the 
twenty fecondverfe of the twenty feventh chapter of 
St. Matthew ; but if Dr. Alill has pretended in vir- 
tue of this note, that Valla had in all but three 
Greek Manufcripts, as Mr. Emlyn has made him fay 
by the addition of the word only^ I'll venture to 
affirm, either that the Dodor is miftaken, or that 
Mr. Emlyn has made him fay more than he has faid. 
The Text of St. Matthew according to the Latin is 
this, What [ball we do to the man^ who is nam'd Je- 
fus? "They all fay ,^ Let him be cruciffd-y and Val^s 
note upon it runs thus, ^ I have three Latin Manu- 
fcripts^ and fo many Greek ones^ which I compare j 
6Litd fometimes I confult other Manufcripts^ and as in 
all the Greek Ifind^ they all fay unto hi m, the word 
him I find in none of the Latin, Now Valla is {o 
far from faying, he had but three Gr^^^' Manufcripts, 
that on the other hand he fays he had more, wc mufl 
only underfland, that ordinarily he contented himfelf 
with comparing three Latinwith three Greek Manu- 
fcripts when he w^u]pon Si- Matthezv's Gofpel. 
»" .1.1 .1 II ■ 11 I ■ . ■ I 

3 Miliii Proleg. No. io86. t> Ties Codices, Latinos, 6:totidem 
Graecos habeo, cum hac compono ; & nonnunquam alios Co- 
dices habeo, & cum in omnibus Graecis legam, dlci^nt ei om- 
nss, nomeii illud « in nullo Latinorum lego. 

K i To 



(70 ) 

To come, if they defire it, yet ciofer, tho^ in 
the iDkin it matteis not much whether Falla had 
feven or three Maniifcripts, we will however prove 
thcfiril article 5 and for this we need only tranfcribe 
one of his Notes, 'tis upon the thirtieth verfe of the 
feventh chapter of St. John^ They fought to take him^ 
is the Text ; and the note runs thus, 7 have read 
SEVEN Greek Copies^ in every one of "which it was 
'Writtenj 6cc. This is full, but this isn't all, 'tis but a 
fmall matter, the principal remains behind, which 
is ro fhew, that Falla found the paflage of Si. John 
in his Greek Qo^Ks : Has hefaid it, or has he made a 
remark upon it ? The difficulty is no more than up- 
on this 3 I {hall now clear it. 

Laurentius Falla gave to his Work no other than 
the general title of Annotations^ tho' at the bottom 
*tis a Critical Performance upon the Latin Verfion^ 
in comparing it with the Greek. Every other title 
would have llartled his Readers, and might have 
brought him inro trouble, by reaion of the extreme 
affe(5i:ion, which, as I have obferv'd, was ftiewn to- 
wards the Latin Verfion : Any one may be convinc'4 
of this from the excellent Letter of Erafmus to 
Fijher the Apoitolick Protonotary, which Revius 
took care to place before the Edition of Fallal 
Work in 1638. 'ris worth reading: We fee there 
with what extraoidinary refped: he fpeaks of Falla 
and this Work, and with what life and force he 
defends him agi.inft certain fuperditious perfonsj 
who made him guilty of a kind oF Sacrilege, for ha- 
ving attempted to alter the Latin Verfion. Tho' 
the title of this Book was only, as I have faid, that 
oi Annotations upon the New T^eflament j Falla gave 
it another in his particular Writings, he call'd it 
Collationes Novi left anient i^ 6cc. Revius^ who has 
adonied chis Title, and preiix'd it to his Edition j 
reoLcs in the preface to his own Remarks divers 
places where Falla calls his work by this nam.e. 

I mention 



(71 ) 

I mention this only, becaufe it ferves to give us a 
true Idea of thefe Annotations. It feems then this 
learned Critick had purposed to fet down in the places 
where he judg'd it necclT^iry, the differences betwixc 
the Latin Bible, and the Greek Manufcripts > but 
where they agreed, there he made no remark, 
nor mention'd the Greek Manufcripts, 'twas chief- 
ly after this manner he form'd the whole work : 
Thofe who have read it, or {hall have the curiofity 
to read it, will find it to be as I fay : I fliall give 
here a fmall pattern for the Satisfaction of thofe who 
have not read this Book. 

I. Falla often remarks the omiflions either of a 
Text, or of a part of one, and fometimes of a 
fingle word, and rellores it from the Greek. 

z. When he finds in the Latin any fmall diffe- 
rences with the Greeky either concerning the fingu- 
lar or plural number of nouns, or thetenfes of verbs, 
he puts it down in his note. 

3. If he had in the Latin half a verfe, or barely 
two or three words, fometimes one word more than 
in the Greek^ there he made his remark. Inftances 
of thefe corrections are innumerable. 

This is in general the plan of his Work, and the 
rnanner wherein 'twas perform'd. 

Coming then now to the paflage of the feventh 
verfe of the fifth chapter of St John's firll Epillle, 
Laurent ius Valla read it in the Latin Bibles, as we do 
at prefent : This is not, nor can it be difputed 3 he 
has made no obfervation upon it, becaufe he made 
none upon the Texts where the Latin and the Greek 
agreed. This happen'd, as we have feen, in that 
cafe only where the Latin differ'd from the Greek of 
his Manufcripts. Hecarry'd his exaCtnefs fo far, that 
he fuffer'd not one fmall word to efcape him, of this 
we have inftances throughout his whole Book. One 
of this kind is to be feen upon the twenty fecond 
verfe of the twenty feventh chapter of "^i, Matthew \ 

thi$ 



(7X) 

this accuracy is difcern'd here in a like remark upon 
the eighth verfe -, the reading of the Latin Bible, 
is, hi tres unum funt^ " thefe three are one:" Falla's 
note is, Grace eft^ hi tres in unum funt^ «V to sv aV/, 
thefe three agree in one. In the feventeenth verfe of 
the fame chapter the Vulgar Bible has, Omnis ini- 
quit as peccatum eji^ £5? eft peccatum ad mortem : i. e« 
*' all unrighteoufnefs is fin, and there is a fin unto 
'* death o" Falla does not find thefe lafl words to 
ft.md thus in the Greek Copies 3 addenda^ fays he, 
negatio eft^ legendumqs fic^ 6c eft peccatum non ad 
mortem, v.c»t,l i^iv dfAcc^la^ h jr^og B'dvaiov^ there is a Jin 
not unto death. 

In the following verfe, Sed generatio Dei confervat 
eum^ i. e. as 'tis tranflated, or rather paraphras'd by 
Port' Royal J the hirth he has received from God keep- 
€th him pure ^ Falla's note is, Grace eft^ fed genitm 
ex Deo confervat feipfum , dA\' yiv^B-^is- i^ tS Sss 

As yet there had been no difpute againft the paf- 
fage, which fpeaks of the three witnefies in Hea- 
ven, no one had brought it into queftion whether 
'twas really St. John's^ or fuppofititious. This Con- 
tfoverfy arofe not 'till an age after, and when, as 
I have faid, Erafmus publiih'd his Editions of if 16.. 
and ifip. If this difficulty had fprung up m the 
days oiValla^ he would not have fail'd to refolve it, 
when having this paflage before his eyes in the Latin 
Manufcripts, he compared 'em with the GreeL 
However he takes no notice of it, he left the Latin 
as it was, and as he left it throughout the whole 
Epiftle, and elfewhere, when he found no variation 
from the Greek j for where he found the leaif differ- 
ence, he has mark'd it. The Vulgar Latin has the 
vj ordi fmus in the firll verfe of the third Chapter > 
Falla fays hereupon, non legitur Grace -^ yet 'tis a 
word that in no wife alters the fenfe > but 'tis enough 
for this flriS: and rigid Ccnfor, that 'tis a word 

that's 



(73 ) 



that's added, to make a remark that this word Is 
not in the Greek, He mufl have feen then both 
there and elfewhere the mote of the Vulgar Bible, 
an addition which amounts to almoft nothing; and 
faw not the l^eam, the addition of a whole verfc. 

Credat Judaus Jpella^ non ego. 

It has more than once befallen Mr. Emlyn to be 
entrap'd in his own nets : We have an inftance of 
it in this place > to takeaway from us the proof we 
draw from the Manufcripts oi Laurentius Valla con- 
cerning the pafTage of St. John^ he objeds againft 
us the words of Erafmus in his Commentary upon 
this Text, ^iiid Laurentlus legerity non fat is liquet: 
As if Erafmus would fay, that it does not appear 
Valla had read this palTage in the Greek Copies 5 
and yet 'tis quite otherwife, as 'tis eafy to learn from 
the very words of Mr. Emlyn's tranflation, who 
has thus render'd thefe Latin words. How Valla 
found or read (this place in St. John) does not fully 
appear 'y fince this is expreflly to fay, that Valla 
found it j that he read it 3 but the only thing Eraf- 
mus was not fatisfy'd about, was how this palfage 
was read in Valla's Manufcripts, and whether there 
were no variations, as there were among the Lati^ 
Copies, in fome of which, tho' but few of 'em, 
were wanting thefe words of the verfc, in caloy 
in fome others the kit claufe, hi tres tinum funt ; 
and in a Manufcript of Conflance mention'd by Eraf- 
mus^ the words teflimonium dant. Some of thefe 
differences in the Latin Copies might be alfo found 
in the Greek 3 as might others withal depending 
purely upon the nature of the Greek Tongue, as in 
particular are thofe relating to the Articles. In 
fhort, Erafmus^ as himfclf tells us, knew only of 
two Greek Manufcripts, wherein was found the Text 
of the three witnelfes in Heaven, the Father, the 
Word, and the Holy Gholt : The one was the 

Manu- 



( 74 ) 

Manufcript of England^ and the other, that whicfe 
was made ufe of by the famous Complutenfian Edi- 
tors > this Text was indeed in both thefej buE 
with divers variations, which Erafmus has fet 
down in his Commentary 5 the words ttoi]*?^, Ao- 
yoq^ and TTi/sC/^ttft, were without articles in the Ma- 
nufcript of England'^ and they had each their 
refpe^live Articles in the Complutenfian Edition, 
TTo^yj^y Koyog^ to Trvsu/xot* The word ccyiov Holy 
before the word Spirit was left out in the Ma- 
nufcript of England, the Complutenfian Copy had 
this word, to olyiov tvv^v^a : In the Manufcript of 
England wzs read J-ra* ol r^eig^ hi tre:>j thefe three 5 
the word ^to/, thefe^ is not in the Complutenfian^ 
which fays barely, ol t^«^, the three. We read 
there, ol -r^etg eU ^n tv e/cr<, tre^ in unum [unt^ i. e. 
*' the three agree in one," which properly belong 
to the eighth verfe 3 the Manufcript of England^ 
like all thofe we have feen of R. Stephen^ has xto< 0* 
T^«? iv eicrt^ hi tres unum funt^ '^ Thefe three are 
^' one." Twas then natural after ail this for Eraf* 
Tnus to fay he did not fully fee after what manner 
the Text of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoil was 
read in Falla's Manufcripts, fince Falla had not 
recited it in his Book. Nor had he any occafion 
to produce it there, for the reafon already given, 
becaufe that learned Man didn't propofe to quote 
the Greek Texts, where he found Vm to agree with 
the ordinary Latin Veriion : For as to that fort of 
different readings, which might be found in fome 
particular Manuicripts, Laurentius Valii didn't trou- 
ble himfelf to fet them down, this being a work of 
infinite labour, and no great iiDpo; tance. ' Fis with- 
al at prefent of no concern to us to be certify'd of 
what Erafmus fays he didn't fully know cunct-rniiig 
the precife manner, or the exad terms wherein this 
Text was read in the Greek Manufcrir^rs of Lan-- 
refitius Falla : the mam point is not aft eacd by icj 

5 the 



( 75 ) 

the Text was there, Erafmus does not fay he doubt- 
ed of iti and to put an end to this Article, I ihall 
obferve after Revius^ that 'tis to this Learned Man 
the publick is endebted for the difcovery of this 
Book of Annotations, which had drawn upon VaJla 
abundance of reproach from the paOionate admiiers 
of the Latin Verfion j he found it out in the year 
If 04. annongil divers old Manufcripts in I know 
not what place, and the year after caufes it to 
be publifli'd j without which in all probability this 
valuable work had met wiih the fate of abundance 
of other Manufcripts which have been lolt under 
the duit or mouldinefs of negle(5led clofets. 



^'^^^^Z^^ltTA^^K^^S^l^:^^: 



Chap. XI. 

An examination of Mr. Emlyn'^- an^ 
fwers relating to the parage of Ca- 
jetan, and the Codex Britannicus, 
or Manufcript of England, produced 
by Erafmus. 

F XT after the Manufcripts of Laurentius 
Valla I had produced the teilimony of 
Cardinal Cajetan^ who, in his Co.-nmenf 
upon this Text, has faid, that he found if 
not in all the Greek Manufcripts^ hut only in fomeo 
As this Cardinal has quoted no one in particu/ar, 
T toiCiaw anObje6tion which might be made, that 
tiLffe words b uig general, Cajetan might have faid 
in a loofc fciife, and upon the credit of aJiorher, 
that ihis Text was founu ui fomc Manufcripts j 
and 1 difpers'ci this fmail cloud by ihe reflexions I 

L made 




( 76 ) 

made upon Cajetan's charadter, upon the time, and 
place he wrote in. My reflexions (land without a 
reply, To that the teilimony of Cajetan^ which 
Mr. Emlyn only touches (lightly, remains in its full 
force. 

Indeed, Cajetan was not one of thofe common 
Writers, who poficively aflert uncertam and doubt- 
ful fafts upon the credit of another •, nor of 
thofe other Writers, who through a blind preju- 
dice, the too common efFe6l of ignorance, and a 
millaken party interell, inconfiderately give in to 
the truth of fads reported by others j nor lailly, 
did he live in a country, where he could not inform 
himfclf, and fee whether in his own Library, or in 
others at Rome^ was found any one of thofe copies, 
wherein he fays the paflage of St. John was : He 
was himfelf fame what doubtful concerning its au- 
thenticknefs, for this only reafon, becaufe he found 
it not in all the Greek M.vmfcripts. The profound 
veneration the Church of Rome had for the Latin 
Verfion, was enough for this learned and judicious 
Cardinal to fet it m competition with the Greek Ma- 
nufcripts, in which this paflage w^as wanting^ and 
that placing himfelf betwixt the Vulgar Latin and 
thefe Manufcripts, he fhould remain undetermui'dj 
but inflead of this he oppofes Greek Manuicripts to 
Greek Manufcripts > and having plac'd fome on one 
lide, and others on the other, and having heard all, 
fome for, and others againil it, he dares not decide 
concernmg the Text's authenticknefs. 

Non noftrum inter vos tantas componere lites. 

And this is as much to my thinking, as if he had 
faid, I have feen fevcral Manuicripts which have 
not this Text, and I have feen others which have 
it : ^Twas not in all^ hut it was m Jome. 

Erafmus fays, that the Manufcripr, wherein he 
had feen it, was found in EngUmd^ upon the credit 

of 



(77) 

of which he rcdores this Text in his third Edition 
in ifiz. All thofe who have fpoke of it after him, 
have faid Era/fm^s read it^ and Mr. Simon among 
the reft. Mr. Emlyn on the other hand maintains 
that 'tis an imaginary Manufcript which no perfon 
has ever fecn, and which Erafmus himfclf, who 
quotes it, never (liys he read, but only there is found 
among the Englifli one Manufcript 'which has it in 
this ynanner^ cVi -x^i'xq «(r<v, i^c, I have confuted this 
pretence of Mr. Emlyn^ whilft under the^covert of his 
namclefspircc, of v.'hich I have oft had occalion to 
fpcak here j and he makes no exprefsaniwxr. 

Erafmus was not one of thofe credulous men, who 
rake every thing for true they hear fay'd;, efpecially 
in matters which fuit with their own inclination. 
He was a learned and judicious man, an exa6t Cri- 
tick, who lov'd to fee things at hand, and by him- 
felF, and as to the prefent fa(St:, he was in no wiiepre- 
judic'd ill favour of the difprted paflage \ all this 
is certain. When Edu-ard Ley complains heavily 
againll him for not having inierted this Text into 
his two firft Editions of the New Teftament in Greek^ 
Erafmus anfwers him, that the only reafon why he 
did not, was becaufe he found it not in any of the 
A^Janufcripts from which thefe Editions were made 5 
that if he had found it, he would moll certainly 
have inferred it ^ and if^ adds he, / had met iJoith 
but one Copy wherein it had been^ I would have plac'd 
it there. As foon as he did find fuch a Copy in 
England^ Erafmus forthwith puts out a third Edition, 
and inferts this Text in it, copied word for w^ord 
from this Manufcript. *Tis not poOible to fee 111 
any man more iincerity, integrity, and all toge- 
ther more judgment and precaution, than this le"ar- 
ned Critick has {hewn upon this occafion. Had he 
faid, as Mr. Emlyn defires, that he had feen this Ma- 
nufcript, and read the pafiage in it, he could not have 
faid more than in his anfwer to Edward Ley > nor 

L i would 



( 78 ) 

would it be more difficult for Mr. Emlyn^ tn fuch a 
cafe, to find other evafions • He [aw it ^ nd where 
would he fay, and in whofe hands, for no Dody be- 
fides him favs he law it. He read it^ but do's he fay 
he found it in the Text^ or whether it was not be- 
tween the lines, or in the margin, as Mr. Eraiyn 
fays of the Manufcript of the King of Fruffia ? 
Such an one as he, well or ill, gets over all difficul- 
ties. 

To return to Erafmus^ he fhews he had in fuch 
wife feen, read, and examined this Codex Br it mini- 
tus^ as he always names it, that he made diveis re- 
marks upon it : I have given 'em in my Diffcrtationj 
with the oppofite obfervations of Mr. Simon on thofe 
of Erafrhus. 

Laftly, 'Tis fo true, that Erafmus has carried his 
exaftnefs in regard to this pafTage as far as one can 
wifh, and as ought to be expe&d from a man of his 
fagacity and integrity, that quoting upon this Text 
another fort of Manufcript, which he had not fecn, 
he declares 'tis upon the credit of one of his Friends, 
whofent him from Rome ihcCo^y of an ancient Ma- 
nufcript of St. John^s Epidle in the Vatican^ where- 
in the words of the feventh verfe were wanting. 
Nothing difcovers to us better the veracity and judi- 
cious forefight of Erafmus^ in advancing no fadb up^ 
on this head without mature deliberation, and where- 
of he was not inhimfelf iuiiiciently ailurd. 




Ch A P« 



(79 ) 

Chap. XII. 
Of R. Stephen^ Greek ManiifcripU^ and 
Beza'^ Teftimony c oncer rang Vw, a^ 
gatyifi the vain evafions of Mr. Emlyn. 

Ill^^^j IS here Mr. Emlyn has gone beyond him- 
P 'TliiS ^^^^ ^" finding out artificial turns to (c^ 
^t— .J^i cure his caufe from the invincible proof, 
■^^li'Sl which R. Stephen's Manufcripts afford to 
th': ^cnuinenels of St. John's pailiige -, but the more 
pains he rakes, the more he lays open the weaknefs 
oi that fide he thought to defend -, the whole he pro- 
duces are only />^r/:?^/)^5 'tis probable^ "'tis poffiblc^ and 
fuch other expreflions, which fignify nothing, or 
decide nothing, and yet decifive proofs are here ne- 
cefllu"y ; nor mufl any thing be allow'd toconje6i:urc, 
'till after the dccilion of fa6ts. This is the method I 
have follow 'd, and 'tis the only one we mufl: take 
in this place. 

The main of the difpute is to prove, that the 
Greek Editions of the Ne^^ Teftament^ wherein the 
Text of the three Witneffcs, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghofl: is read, have been made from 
ancient Greek Manufcripts. Mr. Emlyn pofitively af- 
fures us, there is none fuch, and that no perfon has 
faid he fav/ or read one, wherein this paffage was. 
The arguments and proofs I have brought to the 
contrary fhew, that 'tis an unwarrantable affurance 
to advance a fad fo evidently falfe. The falfity of it 
has been demonflrated too in the moll clear manocr 
in the world, by the Editions R. Stephen publilh'd 
of the New 7'eftament^ with this Text, in if 4(5, 
1 5*49. in 16°. and in iffo. in Folio, with references 
to the Greek Manufcripts. As I thought that mat- 
ter had not been fully clear'd, I enter'd into a labori- 
S ous 



( 8o ) 

ous indeed, but very iiecefTary detail of it, in order 
to remove whatever might remain obfcure or con- 
fus'd. 

I had begun with determining expreflly the num- 
ber of Manufcripts B. Stephens had madeufe of in his 
Edition of if fo This fa61: had flood in much con- 
fufion 5 ^ and Dr. Mill hinifelf, whom" Mr. Emiyn 
quotes as an Author, who faid R- Stephens had fix- 
teen Manufcripts, had no better fucceeded in this 
affair than others j for under the number fixrecn he 
comprehends the Complutenfian Edition, which was 
inflead of a Manufcript to that learned Critick and 
Printer ; whereas 1 have fhewn that R. Stephens Iiad 
fixteen Manufcripts befides that of Complutum. 

From thence I pafs'd on to examine the queilion, 
whether he had no more Copies of the firit Epillle 
of St. John than the feven Manufcripts, which are 
quoted in the margin of the feventh verfe of the 
fifth chapter by their numeral or alphabetick let- 
ters. This affair has lain under much mifreprefen- 
tation: I fhew'd the miflake, and urg'd in proof of 
it two obfervations, the one of which \^ a very folid 
conjedure, and the other an evident proof. Mr. Em- 
lyn treats the former as an extravagant conceit, and 
lays nothing of the latter but what's pitiful. 

My firll obfervation confifled in this, that the fe^ 
ven Canonical Epiflles being ordinarily join'd m one 
Volume with the Epiflles of St Paul^ it followed 
from thence, that R. Stephens had as many Copies 
of the feven Canonical Epdtles as of the others. 
Now I had found fourteen Manufcripts of St. PauPs 
Epiflles mark'din the margins 5 whence I concluded 
there werefo many of the ieven Epiflles. This con- 
jedure cannot feem weak to any but thofe v/ho know 
not that in the Manufcripts thefe lad Epiflles ordina- 
rily made but one Volume with thofe of St. Paul^ 



Mill^ Proieg, 11 56. 

as 



( 8i) 

as they do in the printed Editions. All Mr. Emlyrfs 
anfwer to this confifls in laying, ^ that I cannot be fo 
weak to think this will pafs for a good and invincible 
proof with men of fenfe . I own frankly, that 'tis true, 
I am not fo weak as to think men of iVlr. Emlyn's^cnCe 
can be well pleas'd with this remark j for howihould 
they like it, when the mod evident proofs are not 
perceiv'd by 'em ? He asks if I didn't know, that 
Dr. Mill has obferv'd in divers of his Prolegomena, 
that there are frequent defeds in feveral Manufcriptsj 
that in oneisfometimes wanting a whole chapter, in 
another fomewhat elfe. This is to change the fad} 
I had no need to have read Dr. Alill to know this, I 
knew it many years before the Do6i:or fet pen to pa- 
per i but Mr. Emlyn himfelf alfo knows, that we 
have right to prefume nothing is wanting to a Vo- 
lume, 'till it can be made appear that fome partof it 
is. This then is what he mull: prove. 

I had alfo obferv'd, that a Copy mark'd ^^T, that 
is, the 14^^, was quoted in the margin to the fourth 
verfe of the fir (I chapter of the fecond Epiftle of 
St. Peter, This Epiitle comes next before that of 
Sr. John^ and can't make with it above one or two 
leaves in a Manufcript, the confequence then was 
very natural to fay, that this Manulcript i§ contain'd 
alfo the Epiilleof St. John. 

In order then not to be miftaken in reckoning up 
the Manufcripts of R, Stephens upon the firll Epiille 
of St. Johnj if we confine 'em to the number of fe- 
ven, becciufe fcven are only quoted in the margin, 
we muilreafon in this manner j R. Stephens h-^d only 
the precife number of Manufcripts of every Book of 
the New feftament^ which are quoted in the margin 
of that Booki but there are only feven quoted upon 
the firfi Epiftle of St. John-, therefore he had only 
feven Manufcripts of that EpilUe. This confc- 

a Page 31, 

quencc 



(80 

quence wholly depends upon the firft propofition, 
which being nororiouOy hilfe, the confequence can'c 
be true. I can't enough wonder, that any man 
fhould not fee a reafoning fo juft and natural, who 
has but curforily ran over R. Stephens's New fejlament. 
In fhort, without going out of the feven Canoni- 
cal Epiftlesj I find in the fecond Epiftle of St. jP^- 
ter one Manufcript more than in the firitj in the 
iirft Epiftle of St. John two Copies more than in the 
fecond, 'viz. the Complutenjianj and the Manufcript f, 
or 7. which was one of thofe belonging to the King's 
Library. In the third Epiftle there is none bun the 
Complutenftan Copy, and four Manufcripts, which 
are the only ones in the Epiftle of St. Jude. The 
Confequences which flow from all thefe variations, 
are fo evident, that 'tis not poffible to over-look 'em 
without ihutting ones eyes. The firft is, that it fol- 
lows not from R. Stephen's having fet down in the 
margin of fome one of thefe Epiftles, but a certain 
number of Manufcripts, that he had not fo many of 
it as of the other Epiftles j fo many, fay I, of the 
firft Epiftle of St. Peter as of the fecond, and fo of 
others. The other confequence is, that this judici- 
ous Critic k quoted only in the margin (uch Manu«* 
fcripts as he found different with thoie from which 
he printed the Text. So that this firft reafoning, 
which Mr. Emlynhns fpokefo flightingly of, where- 
by I fhevv'd that R. Stephens had more than feven 
Manufcripts of the firft Epiftle of St. John, cannot 
fail to find more folidity with men of fenfe^ than he 
has imagined. 

My fecond reafon for a greater number of Manu- 
fcripts of the firft Epiftle of St. John^ than the fe- 
ven which are there mai^k'd in the margin of the 
feventh verfe of the fifth chapter, was taken from 
the teftimony of Beza : 'Tis pofitive 3 for this lear- 
ned Divine diftinguifties in his notes the Manufcripts 
wherein this verfe was, from the other Manufcripts 

wherein 



(83) 

wherein the words y tw x^^^vw, in Heaven^ were 
wanting. In fpeaking of this verfe he fays, Eraf- 
mus re^id it in the Manufcript of England, fhs 
Complutenfian Editors read it alfo^ and vje have 
read it in fome ancient Manufcripts of our Friend 
R. Stephens. Then in a fecond note upon the words 
ov rco iip^vu), he obfcrvcs they iverc not in feven of 
Srephens'j Manufcripts. Stephens had then more 
than feven Manufcripts of this Epiftle 5 feven where- 
in thefe two words of the Verfe were nor, and fonie 
others, wherein the Verfe was entire, as inferted 
in the Text. Can any thing be more evident ? 
And can there be a more manifeft dill:in6tion be- 
tween the MSS. wherein Beza read the Verfe en- 
tire i for 'tis of the whole Verfe, that he fays Eraf^ 
7nus and the Coinplutenfian Bible had read it, and 
the other MSS. to the number of feven, wherein 
the words bv tw «'^vw were wanting, words which 
are alfo found mark'd in five ancient Manufcripts of 
the Latin Bible, as we have feen in Hentenius ? When 
any man fubmits not to fo perfe6t a demonflration, 
'tis in vain to reafon with him any longer. 

^ But fuppofmg^ fays Mr. Emlyngtn&xou^y^ and as 
if it were a favour, fuppofmg Beza didy as perhaps he 
mighty imagine that fome other Manufcripts <?/ Stephens 
had this verfe 'y this has been long thought by others 
thro'' miflakcy and why might not he miftake as ivell as 
others? Others have thought, and thro' miftake 5 
Mr. Emlyn fays fo, that's all : and Beza might miftake 
as well as others -, Beza could read, and he did read j 
£t nos legimusy 6cc. 

But adds he, in purfuing his point, it no ivay ap^ 
pears that ever Beza had ally if any of Stephens'^ 
ManufcriptSy or that he had the Manufcripts of the 
King's Library to compare at all It well appears 
Mr. Emlyn talks like a man who laiows little of the 



M jnatter. 



( 84) 

matter. Beza \\^di?\\ Stephen's MaiHifcripts 5 I Iiave 
brought witnefs of it, and Mr. Emlyn gives no an- 
fwer to't. I will add here befides the declaration of 
R. Stephens himfelf, who in his advertifement to the 
^Reader, placed at the end of Beza's Edition of the 
New feftament with Notes, wherein he cites at 
every turn the Manufcripts he ufually calls our M ami- 
fcripts^ " noftri Codices'\ This very R. Stephens^ 
who himfelf put out that Edition in iff(5 fays, 
^ that the fe Manufcripts are thofe of the King's Libra- 
ry^ and others^ viz. thofe 6'^f^/?f/2j had collected from 
divers places j and which added to the King's made 
up the number of fixteen. I will fpeak by-and-by 
of this Edition, which Mr. Simon fays he never faw, 
becaufe indeed it's very fcarce. Mr. Emlyn a little 
after goes on in the fame tone 5 Beza^ fiys he, might 
*well enough ufethe Phrafes^ Legimus £c invenimus in 
noflris, 6cc. without reading ''em any where hut in Ste- 
phensV own notes and colMiions. A man then may 
have read ^v\d found fomewhat in the Manufcript of a 
Book, without having ever feen or read thofe Ma- 
nufcripts, and barely from having found cyphers or 
alphabetical numeral letters, by which the Manu- 
fcripts are mark'd in the margin. This is a very in- 
genious difcovery, and Mr. Emlyn may aflure him- 
felf no man will rob him of the honour of being 
its author. 

To this fine thought he adds another, which is 
no lefs foj for here all is wit and fancy. ^ Henry 
Stephens, the Son of Robert, had collected the read- 
ings of ten more Copies^ and written ''em into one of the 
New Teftaments of his Fathefs fair Edition^ which 
had already fo many various readings noted in the mar^ 
gin J this ^reafure was put into BezaV hands ^ who he^ 

" -.11 ■ "" ..■»!■ I .11 ■ I , 

a Le6lo.i. Quod ad Vetera Novi Teltamenti Graeci exempla- 
ria attinet, quorum fides &: authoritas in his Annocationi- 
bus fiepiffime citatur, funt cum alia, turn ea omnia, quae in 
Regis Galliarum Bibiioihed extant, b p^gQ 34. 

1 /»^ 



(85 ) 

tng thus furnlJJj^d^ feems to have taken little or no fur- 
ther care to make any fearch of h'nnfelf into thofe Co' 
pies or Manufcripts^ nor perhaps ever to have feen 'cm. 
'Tis a difagreeable thing to have do with men who 
hazard every thing, and fear not what they lay. Be- 
za receiv'd not this valuable Copy from //. Stephens^ 
'till after the death of Robert his Father, who liv'd 
full three yearsafter himfclf had printed the New Te- 
/lament and Annotations of Beza. That Edition 
was publilliM in Iff6. R. Stephens d^\d\-\\ die 'till 
iffp, and the Edition of the New fejlament^ with 
Beza's Notes, by'//. Stephens^ came not out 'till the 
year i f (5f , The relf of what Mr. Emlyn fays in this 
place is nothing better) that Beza took no fur- 
ther care to make any fearch of himfelf into 'em^ and 
perhaps had never feen thefe Manufcripts, But where 
did Mr. Emlyn find this, fince we have proofs to the 
contrary ? From all that we have faid concerning 
the number of Manufcripts of the firfl: Epiflle of 
St. John^ it clearly follows, that there were at leafl 
nine, belides the Complutenfian Copy, wherein the 
Text of the feventh verfe was found 5 ieven, where- 
in 'twas not entire, the words b> tco i^-^^ being want- 
ing, and two others at leall, wherein 'twas perfect 5 
for the expreflion in fome^ which Beza ufes in fpeak- 
ing of thpfe, in which he had read 'em, mud be un- 
derftoqd of two at leaft. The following chapter 
wiJl,)Ed^i'roborate all thefe remarks, and carry on th^ 
X^I^^X tothehigheil degree of conviftion. 




M % Chap. 




(U) 

Chap. XIII. 

That Mr. Emlyn has confuted none of 
the proofs I ur£d againfi the pretend- 
ed mtfplacmg the obelus m R. Ste- 
phen sV Edition over-agamfi the words 

HE ohelusy which R. Stephens h^s pkc'd 
before the words h tw i^'^vw, is in this 
grand affair decifive for the authority of 
the pafTagej for if this Httle mark re- 
fpfds only two words, as being wanting in the fe- 
ven Copies quoted in the margin, 'twill follow that 
all the reft of the verfe was in thofe very Copies> 
and alfo, that it was entire in the other Copies 
i?. Stephens confulted. Thefe two confequences are 
juft, and decide fully in favour of the authentick- 
nefs of the paflage. The whole queftion then has 
been, whether the obelus ought to be placed after 
sl^vw, as it is in the Edition, or after the words h 
Tjj 5/?, in terra ^ which are in the middle of the 
eighth verfe, as thofe perfons pretend who oppofe 
the authenticknefs of this Text j and this I have 
fully fhewn to be fldfe. 

Without repeating here the proofs already pro- 
duc'd, I demand whence one may know that an 
obelus^ or Semicircle, in an ancient edition is wrong 
plac'd, and goes beyond the word where it ends. In 
my opinion one of thefe two anfwers muft be given : 
Firft, That the Author of that Edition has mark'd 
it in his Errata as a fault of the imprellion, or that 
he has correfted it in a later Edition 5 and fecondly, 
That the Copy, whereby he was influenc'd in placing 
the obelus in his Edition, not only wanted the words 

where 



(87) 

where the oheltis terminated, but feveral other words 
alfo immediately following, which make up the 
whole period : Now neither of thefe anfwers can 
be urg'd againft the place of the ohclus in the feventh 
verfe. R. Stephens has not mark'd it in any other 
Edition j he publifh'd one the year after, and the 
Text is found in it entire: 'I'ls true indeed, he 
didn't propofe to place an obelus in this 8^'^ Edition, 
nor any other fuch marks, as he had inferted in the 
margins of the foregoing Edition •■, but if his de- 
fign, and the nature of the lize of the Edition in 
Iff I. didn't allow him to place there ohelus's^ he 
ought, as exa(5l and judicious as he was, to have fee 
before, or at the end of that Edition, which i^ in 
two Volumes, a fmajl advertifement to corre(5l fo 
confiderablc a fault as this was : R, Stephens has 
done nothing by way of emendation 3 a fign he was 
not fenfible of any fault he had committed. 

The fccond way of proving the obelus wrong 
plac'd, would be by the Manufcripts themfelves, 
from which R. Stephens made this obfervation> but 
this method is impradi cable, becaufe thefe Manu- 
fcripts are no longer in being j and i^ Stephens h'^d 
a6led contrary to what he found in his Manufcripts, 
he would have been a moll egregious cheat, which 
none of his greateft enemies ever obje6led againll 
him. Beza witnefTes of him in a Note upon the 
firff chapter of St. Matthew^ that his exa6lnefs and 
accuracy in printing the Holy Scripture?, were 
own'd by all the learned and valuable part of man- 
kind ; and Hentenius Profeflbr of Divinity at LoU" 
vain^ has given the fame teflimony in his Preface to 
the Edition of the Latin Bible in if 47. Upon 
what grounds then is the pretence now form'd 
that the obelus which begins at the word fv, and 
ends at ^^v<^^ ought to be plac'd after the words 
Iv T^ yf, which are in the middle of the eighth 
verl'e ? The only reafon they have, and Mr. Emiyn 

has 



( 88 ) 

has been able to give no other in botli his perform- 
ances, is that thefe words, in Heaven^ the Father^ 
the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft *, and there are three 
that bear record in earthy are in no Greek Manufcript. 
But this reafoning contains two paralogifms. The 
fii fl is what is call'd in Philofophy ab enumeratione 
infufficienti : Thefe words are not found in the an- 
cient Manufcripts of the Vatican^ nor in the Alex- 
andrian^ nor in any other we have at prefent ; they 
were then in none of Stephens's : The f.iKity of this 
way of reafoning is feen at firll view. The other 
paralogifm confiils in this, that the reafon alledg'd 
again ii- the obelus^ is taken from a fuppofition, that 
thefe words are not St. John's > whereas 'tis evident 
from the proofs I have given, that the whole Church 
has receiv'd 'em as the genuine words of that Apo- 
ille, and withal that the greateft enemies to the 
doctrine of the Trinity, againd whom the Ortho- 
dox uig'd 'em, never look'd upon 'em as fuppofiti- 
tious, and read 'em themfelves in then' own Bibles, 
as the Orthodox did in theirs : This I have clearly 
dcmonftrated. And can any thing be thought of 
more weak than a reafoning founded upon two fo- 
phifms ? 

Notwithibnding this, and as if it was the mofl 
admirable reafoning in the world, Mr. Emlyn here 
infultingly exclaims againll me 3 Mr. Martin, fays 
he, would have blujh'd to fay in the conclufton of his 
Booky that his Oppofers alledge nothing but reafonings 
without proofs — and that his Jdverfaries argue from 
the Texts not being in the Vatican nor Alexandrian. 
I iliould have blujh\d indeed to have been fo ftupid, 
or have a61:ed with fo little integrity, as to charge 
'em with bringing no other proof of the pretend- 
ed mifplacing the obelus^ than that the Text of the 
feventh verfe is not in the Vatican nor Alexandrian 
Manufcripts, But Mr. Emlyn Ihall blufh^ if he will, 
tor havmg either through negligence, or otherwife, 

(himfelf 



( h) 

(himfelf bed knows the rcafon) reflrain'd my words 

to thofe two Manufcripts : I added an L5?r. under 

which I comprehended all rhe (;ther Manufcripts 

that are oppos'd to us : This (yc. blunts the edge of 

My. Emlyn's Satyr > he takes away that, and iVIr. 

Martin mull blufh. But this little figure oF an ^c. 

could not but be fecn by Mr. Emiyn s 'tis fanly 

printed in my D'lJJh'tation^ and is plain to be read 

in the firll line of the 1 29^'^ P'^g^j 'i^^s alfo in the 

EngliJJj Tranflation, and I didn't put it down in 

my Book, 'till after I had fiid, no other anfwer have 

they to give^ than that this 'Text is not in fuch and 

fuch Greek Manufcripts 5 this is general, and not 

confin'd to the two Manufcripts of the Fatkan^ 

and of Alexandria. 

Mr. Emlyn clofes this paragraph with urging 
again what he has faid and repeated an hundred 
times, that we bring not one Manufcrip in proof : 
And in proof of what? That the obelus is rightly 
plac'd? For 'tis that only we are now upon: But 
fuch an anfwer would be very ridiculous j wc muft 
not charge it upon M\\ Emlyn: What then? That 
we brnig no Aluuifcvipr ,': proof of the Text; But 
would not this alfo be vciy ^l:alant, that at a time 
we produce a large number of R. Stephens's Ma- 
nufcripts, we fho'jld be told, that we bring not 
one M.inufcript ? 

But who iias feen, fays he again, thefe Manu- 
fcripts 5 we bring not one witnejs that fays he faiv 
fuch a one upon his own immediate fear ch ? 'Tis enough 
that R. Stephens has faid it, and that he has given 
jin account of the fcven by which he was guided 
in placing the obelus y R. Stephens is a perlon of 
credit, fo is Beza too> and Beza has faid in a hun- 
dred places he read and compar'd thefe Manufcripts j 
and as to what refpedls the obelus in particular, no- 
thing can be requir'd upon that head more exprefs 
than the palfage I have recited. 

Wc 



( PO ) 

We are now come to the place where 'tis ne- 
cefTary to return to the Edition, which was made 
of Beza's Notes in iff(5. perhaps Mr. Emiyn will 
fee that matter more clearly, when he fhall have 
read what I am about to fay. 

Beza and R. Stephens^ who both fled for refuge 
to Geneva upon the account of Religion, and were 
both very learned men, had a particular eileem and 
friendfhip for each other. Stephens^^ who was not 
a Divine by profeffion, mightily prefs'd Beza^ who 
was both a Critick and a Divine, to v/rite upon 
the Nezv Teftament 5 ^Cahm urg'd him withal very 
earneflly to undertake this Work : He refolv'd up- 
on it, and in the mean while being call'd to Lau- 
zame to be Profeflbr of Philofophy there, he went 
on with his work upon the N'ew Teftament. As 
foon as he had prepared fome flicets or quires of 
his performance for the prefs, he fent 'em to Geneva 
to his Friend R. Stephens ^ and he, who had that 
work much at heart, printed 'em off as foon as he 
received 'em. Thus was this Edition begun, and 
carried on, 'till all was finifh'd. Beza dates his 
preface from Lauzanne in iff (5. and R. Stephens 
inferts in his advertifement what I have juft related 
concerning the manner, after which this Edition was 
printed by him. 

Beza has faid in his annotations upon the paflage 
in St. John's Epiftle, that he had read it in fome 
ancient Manufcripts of R. Stephens^ but for the two 
words h Tio K^'vf , which ftand in the middle of the 
Text, he £iys, they 'were wanting in [even Manu^ 
fcripts^ which precifely agrees with the mark of the 
ohelm. The fheets of Beza\ Work were fent, as 
we have feen, to R. Stephens^ and pafs'd under his 
eyes, and were printed by him. If Stephens had 
been only one of the Working Printers, or a com- 

■ ■ I I ' ' " " ■■ . I ,11 III I i» »» iw njB i I m 

a Teijlir, Eloge des hommes fa vans arc. d^c Thsodor. Beza. 



(91 ) 

mon Bookfeller, who gives the Copies of Author^ 
into the Printers hands, without havrng the curio- 
fity to read 'em, or the ability to judge of 'em, one 
might imagine him unacquainted with the notes he 
printed, or which were printed under his name t 
But it would fliew we knew but little of R. Ste* 
phens if we pafs'd fuch a judgment upon him, efpe- 
cially in regard to a Work he had fo earnellly 
wifh'd for, and which he printed off as faft as his 
Friend fent him the quires, which made the reading 
of 'em more eafy to him, and gave him time to 
confider of 'em. Befides, 'twas a very nice and 
curious matter to fee in what manner Beza had 
fpoke of the paflage concerning the Trinity of Per^ 
fons in the Godhead in St. 'John's Epiille. This 
pafTage had rais'd great contcfts, as we have feenj 
Stephens had inferted it in his Editions of i f4(5. if 49. 
and Iff I. without an obelus : He had given it a 
place in his Edition in folio in iffo. All this de- 
ferv'd, that havmg in his hands the quires of his 
Friend, to whom he had communicated his Manu- 
fcripts, he fhould fee what ufe Beza had made of 
'em, efpecially upon a Text of this importance, and 
wherein Stephens himieif was concern'd. He prints 
it with the foremention'd annotations, and in his 
advertifement informs us what Manufcripts were 
quoted in thefe annotations. Who can doubt after 
this, that li Beza had advanc'd a falfhood in afTert^ 
ing he had read all that he fays he had read in Ste* 
phens\ Manufcripts, that learned Printer would noE 
have perceiv'd it, or that he would have print- 
ed it ? 

Mr. Emlyn will tell us, thefe are only reafonings; 
'tis true, but fuch reafonings as turn upon the tads 
themfelves, fa6fs which are notorious and certain j 
and in fuch a cafe reafonings are proofs. 

Lailly, either R. Stephens had the Manufcripts 
wherein the Text of bt. John was found, which 

N hs 



(9^) 

he inferted into four Editiotis one after another, or 
he had not: If he had, all's over, and our caufe is 
gain'd : If he had not, Stephens v/as an Impoftor, 
an infamous fellow, who deferv'd the utmoli con- 
tempt. Mr. Emlyn^ I hope, will be kinder than to 
treat him in this cruel manner. 

How happened it then this Text was put into the 
Edition in 1^4.6. which was the firft, and from 
whence it afterward pafs'd into the others? For, in 
fhort, if they won't allow that Stephens found it in 
any of his Manufcripts, nor will accufe him of ha- 
ving added it of his own head, they mufb tell us 
whence he had it 5 we won't believe Mr. Emlyn^ 
nor the others upon their bare word, and imagina- 
tion > we mud have proofs: Terrible perplexity j 
and yet not fo terrible, but Mr. Emlyn can extricate 
himfelf out on't, and that without much trouble. 
R. Stephens^ fays he, had read the Complutenfian 
Edition, and thofe of Erafmus j from the Complu- 
tefifian he took this part of the verfe, for there are 
three that hear record in Heaven^ the Father^ the 
fFordj and the Holy Ghoft 5 the lafl words of the 
verfc^ and thefe three are one^ y.ou Sroi ol r^eig tv eio-iv^ 
he took from the later Editions of Erafmus -, where- 
as in the Edition of Complutum we read ol r^eig «V iv 

d ■ 

And thus there's no difficulty fo great but by the 
help of a dextrous and inventive faculty of mind 
it may be got out of. I don't think 'tis expe£led I 
ihould throw away my time in the purfuit of fo vain 
an imagination, which vaniihes as foon as form'd. 
I come back to this only: R. Stephens had not the 
villany to forge a Text which had never been in his 
own Manufcripts, and he has faid nothing which 
looks that way, or rather he has taken a quite con- 
trary method 5 this is evident from v/hat I have 
wrote in the ninth and tenth chapters of my Differ t a- 
lion, Befides, he has affur'd us in the Preface to that 

firil 



(93 ) 

firft Edition in if 46. that he had, amongll: others, 
fome Manufcripts of the mofl venerable antiquity, 
ipfd vetuliatis fpccie pene adorandos^ and that he had 
abfolutely put nothing into that Edition which he 
could not juftify by divers of his Manufcripts, and 
thoie the bell > ^I'extufn facrum ita recenfuijfe fe^ ut 
nullam oninino litter am [ecus efje fat cretiir^ quamplures 
iique meliores codices^ tanquam teftes comprobarent. 
This admits of no objecl:ion, and therefore the 
Text of the three witnefles in Heaven was infcrted 
into the Greek Editions of the New Teftament 
upon the credit of the ancient Greek Manufcripts 
oF that facred Epiftle. 

Chap. XIV. 

Of other Greek Mamifcrtpts ryieyiUon'd 
by the Louvain DwmeSy and by Fa- 
ther Amelotte, and of the Berlin 
Maniffcrtpt. 



^fvJ^lHere would be no occafion for me here to 
■"^~^~' 'Ij take upon my felf the defence ofthefe 
Manufcripts 5 if I had defign'd only to 
prove, that the difputcd Text was found 
in the Greek Manufcripts as well as the Latin^ when 
the firil Editions of the New T^ejiamcnt in Greek were 
publilli'd. Mr. Emiyn d^nks it to have been in ariy 
one^ but I have ihewn by i^. Stephens's Editions, that 
'twas even in a great many. I had added to this 
proof the teftimony of the Zo^'z;^;;^ Do61:ors, who in 
the year if47. declared in the preface to a Latm 



* Mill. Proleg. 11 55. 

N Z Bible, 



(94) 

Bible, that R. Stephens had in reality read this Text in 
all his Manufcripts^ with this Difference only, that 
in feven the words b/ rf «^v« were wanting. The 
teftimony of an Univerfity fo famous as that of 
Lowvain then was, is certainly of no fmall weighty 
the more (o^ becaufe in this point thcfe Dodors faid 
nothing but what Beza had faid before 'em, as we 
have feen. And here, by the way, I beg of Mr. 
Emiyn to take a httle more notice of an uniformity 
fo exadly harmonious. 

Thefe Do6tors declare, that themfelves had feen 
federal others in which the paflage of St. John was 
to be found. I had cited their words jull as Mr. tS"/- 
raon^ that great enemy to the authenticknefs of this 
Text, had tranflated them. It feems Mr. Emlyn fan^ 
cies 1 had fome defign in it. With what chfign^ fays 
he fpeaking of me, he heft knows : Yes, 1 do know 
befl: j Mr. Simon's tranflation could not be fiifpc61ed, 
^nd now my d^c^ign is unfolded. As to the citation 
it felf, I had omitted a fhort fentence, becaufe I 
could not fee the inferting it was any thing to my 
purpofe. Mr. Emlyn reprefents this as done with 
defign, and for fear this intermediate fentence fhould 
be prejudicial to the proof I had drawn from the Te- 
ilimony of thefe Dodors. Upon this he mod cer- 
tainly lends me a thought 1 never entertained : 
Let us then produce here the whole palll^ge, and we 
fhall fee which of us was in the wrong, 1 for omit- 
ting this fentence, or Mr. Emlyn for reproaching me 
thus upon this occafion. The paflage is this, which 
I give once more in Mr. Simon's Tranilation, in the 
eleventh Chapter of the Critical Hiftory of theTran- 
flations : t^/. Jerom complains in his Preface to the Ca- 
tboUck Epiftles of the unfaithfulnefs of the Latin In- 
terpreters^ who have omitted the witnefs of the Father^ 
the Word^ and the Eloly Ghoft. This makes good the 
reading of the Text^ which is like wife confirmed by 
abundance of Latin Copies^ and ovqr an4 above by. two 

Greek 



(95) 

Greek Copies cited by Eiafmus, one of zvhich ivas in 
Great-Britain, the other /;;? Spain : AV^,^; Philip 11^'* 
Bible, agrees exa&ly with the/e laft. We have fecn 
federal others like the fe. The fame pajjage is read in 
all Stephens*;, only there are /even which have not in 
coelo, unlef's in his Edition the femi- circle is viark'd 
wrongs which affigns what is not read in this place in 
his Mamifcripts. 

Thefe Do6lors feem to have been before-hand in 
taking my part, and efpoufing my intercft. I have 
maintained that R. 5'/^/)^^;^?; had more than feven Ma- 
nufcripts of St. John\ Epiftle j thefe Dodlors have 
faidthe fame near one hundred and fifty years ago. 

I have diilinguifh'd betwixt thofe Manufcripts of 
Stephens^ which had the pafTnge entire, and thofe 
wherein the words i\ tw ^p^.\>oo were wanting, thefe 
Dodlors had made the fame diftinftion. 

I have fhevj'd that the obelus refpe(5led the words 
CM T'2 ^p^vu only, the Louvain Doctors had made the 
fame difcovery, in cafe, faid they, the Edition is not 
faulty in this place: I would have alfo faid as much, 
if after the fbideft examination I hadn't found that 
in that point, there was no miftake intheimpreflion: 
Nothing then can be more harmonious throughout 
this whole affair than my expofition, and that of the 
Univerfity of Louvain. 

Thele Do6i:ors, in like manner, bear witnefs, that 
the Prologue to the feven Canonical Epiftles, where- 
in complaint is made concerning thispaflage, for its 
having been omitted in unfaithful Tranllations, is 
St. Jero-m's own > here again thefe Dodors agree 
with me. 

They don't fhew they have any fufpicion of the 
Codex Britannicus of Erafmus-, Mr. Emlyn is of a 
different Opinion 5 mine is the fame with that of 
thefe Divines. 

They fpeak of the C^w/?/«/^;i?y?^;^ Edition, asform'd 
upon another Qrcek Manufcript, fo that after he had 

retrieved 



retrlev'd the Manufcript of England^ thefe were the 
Manufcripts of Erafmus j this fame truth I haveeila- 
blifh'd. 

They fay the King's Bible, viz. the Polyglott of 
Philip II. agrees in this Text, as throughout the 
whole, with the Comphtenftan Edition, this is the 
pafTage I didn't mention, becaufe it made nothing to 
my purpofe, and the caufe I defend had no concern 
in this exa61: agreement of the King's Bible with the 
Edition of Comphttum : 'tis however from this fen- 
tence Mr. Emlyn takes his anfwers to wrell what 
thefe Do6tors add, IVe have feen this 'Text in feveral 
other Manufcripts^ to a quite different fenfefrom that 
I thought thefe words to have j this deferves to be a 
little examin'd. 

To this end, let us here again give the words of 
thefe Do6t:ors without the leail omillion 5 The read- 
ing of the Text^ fay they, concerning the Father^ the 
JVord^ and the Holy Gho ft ^ isconfirrnd by a greatnum- 
her of Latin Copies-^ ^ with which two Greek Copies 
agree^ one in England, the other of Spain, quoted by 
Erafmus ; The Kin^s Bible does here^ as every where 
elfe^ agree with that of Spain j we have feen feveral 
others conformable to thefe : Among thofe of Stephens 
there'' s not one which difagrees with 'em. I would ask 
of every one who underflands the Latin^ which I 
have here very faithfully tranflated, whether thefe 
Divines have not faid, that befides the two Greek 
Manufcripts quoted by Erafmus^ viz. the Manu- 
fcripts from which was made the Complutenfian Edi- 
tion, with which King Philip IPs Bible exadly 
agreed, and the Manufcript of England^ they had 
not themfelves feen other Greek Manufcripts which 



» Quibus confentientes duos Graecos codices, unuin Britanni- 
cum, alterum Hifpanicum Erafmus profert : Hifpanico, uc 
ubique, & hie conformis eft Regius: multos alios confonantes 
vidimus : inter omnes Stepliani ne unus eft c|ui diffide.at. 

had 



(97) 

had the fame paflage, that was alfo in all the Manu- 
fcripts of R, Stephens > nothing in the world is more 
evident. 

Mr. Emlyn has drawn a double curtain before his 
Eyes to prevent his feeing it : Firft, That thefe 
words, we baie feen many others conformable to thefe^ 
didn't refer to the Manufcripts of Erafmus and Com- 
plutum^ but the Edition it felf publilli'd by Erafmus^ 
and the Bible printed at Complutum^ with which the 
printed Bible of King Philip agreed j and fecondly, 
that it was of thofe printed Editions they had feen 
feveral others, which had alfo the Text of St. John. 

But that Mr. Emlyn may fee here more clearly, I 
beg him to attend a little more to the connexion of 
the difcourfe 5 for 'tis by this means an Interpreter 
enters into the fenfe of a pafTage : This connexion 
has here a double advantage, and is equally taken 
from what goes before and follows after. What goes 
before is, that Erafmus had found in a Greek Manu- 
fcript of England^ the Text concerning the Father, 
the Word, and the Holy Ghoft 5 and befides this, 
he had feen alfo the fame Text in the Edition of Com- 
plutum^ this Edition had not been made without a 
Greek Manufcript, fo that it was with relation to that 
Manufcript Erafmus cited the Complutenftan Copy. 
The King's Bible was exadly copied from that Edi- 
tion. Atter this come the words, we hai:e feen feve^ 
ral other Copies conformable to thefe 5 to which .^ To 
thefe Greek Copies of Erafmus and of Complutum, 
What follows is to the fame purpofe : Among thofe 
of Stephens there'' s not one^ which do's not agree with 
''em. What mean they by thofe of Stephens ? His 
Editions^ or his Manufcripts ? Without doubt his 
Manufcripts. Thefe Greek Copies then, which the 
Louvain Do6lors fay they faw, are rank'd with that 
which Erafmus had cited, with that of the Complu- 
tenfian Edition, and with all thofe of R. Stephens, 

I know 
3 



(98) 

I am apt to think Mr. Emlyn has a little pef- 
ceiv'd the force of this connexion which I had 
taken notice of^ for having fome miftruil of his for- 
mer anfwer, he approaches nearer to us, not abfo- 
lutely denying but thefe words, PFe have feen fe- 
'veral others conformable^ might beiinderftood of Ma- 
nufcviptsj he*s at lall reduc'd to fay, that perhaps 
thefe Do6tors meant no more than that they had ken 
the cyphers which in Stephens's Edition diitinguilli'd 
the different Manufcripts he made ufe of in forming 
that Edition. I knov/ not what Mr. Emlyn would do 
withoux.^ perhaps y 'tis his grand intrenchment, whi- 
ther he retreats very frequently, as to his lail refuge : 
However, I am not for purfuing him thither j there 
let him refl in quiet, and at prefent let us be con- 
tented with having fufficiently defended the Telli- 
mony the LouvainDodioxs give of then- having feen 
in feveral Greek Manufcripts, the Text concerning 
-the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. 

Father Amelotte^ of the Oratory, has affur'd us 
alfo he faw the fame paffage in a very ancient Greek 
Manufcript of the Vatican. Library : His v/ords are, 
Erafmus has [aid this verfe was wanting in a Greek 
Manufcript of the Vatican, hut I f i n d i t in the 
moft ancient Manufcript of that Library, 

To this we have three anfwers j Firlf, Thefe words 
do not fully determine^ whether F, Amelotte found it 
by his own fearch^ or others information. We ihall 
be at a lofs for the future what terms to make ufe of 
to be underftood by Mr. Emlyn', when Beza faid, I 
have read^ I h^ve founds I have obferv'd in Stephens's 
Manufcripts, this did not mean, that Beza had fccn 
and read thefe Manufcripts, but only that he had feen 
the cyphers or numeral letters in the margins of a 
printed Book 5 and when F. y^melotte fays, / have 
found this paflage in a Manufcript, this neither im- 



• Page 27. b Pag& i8, 

plies 



(99 ) 

plies not that he had Found it himfclf, but that others 
irad found it for him, and given him an account 
on*t 5 this is to divert himfclf with humane lan- 
guage, and Avith reafon. 

The fecond anfwer is, that Erafmus J7ot only fays 
it 'was wanting in one M^nnfcript of the Vatican, but 
in a moft ancient Manufcript. Be it \o^ but I have 
ah'cady obferv'd upon this, that Erafmus and F. y^mc- 
lofte might both be in the right; becaufc there was 
more than one ancient Manufcript in the Vatican 
Library; this would takeaway all contradiction; 
What fays Mr. Emlyn to it ? Nothing at all. But 
what if I fhould here turn his own armsagainll him- 
feU? He won't have us give credit to Cajetan^ nor 
Erafmus^ nor Beza^ nor F. Jmelotte^ nor any other 
perfon whatfoever, who have fiid tliis paHage was in 
the Greek Manufcripts, becaufe they don't fay they 
law and read thefe Manufcripts themfelves; and here 
he oppofes Erafmus^ who had not {ttw the Manu- 
fcript of the Vatican^ and who knew nothing of it 
but from the information one of his Friends had 
given him, to Amelotte^ who fays he found this paf- 
fage himfelfina very ancient Manufcript o^\\\z Vati- 
can -y this is very lingular. But I wnll here again 
pafs him over, that 1 may come fooner to the main 
point. Cariophilus^ adds he after F. Simon ^ in the 
Pontificate of Urban VIII. made an Inventory of 
the Vatican Manufcripts, in which Inventory he 
found not one Greek Manufcript which had the paf- 
fage F. Amelotte fays he found in the mod ancient 
Alanufcripts of that valuable Library. This obfer- 
vation is morefpecioqs than all the rell, but amounts 
to nothing in the end. ^ Cariophilus dy'd in the 
Year i63f. He had drawn up an Inventory of the 
Library in the Potiiicate of Urban V^III. F» Ame- 
lotte^ ^^hQ dy'd in 1678. faw not above twenty five 
or thnty years ^fter the Manufcript he mentions, 



! F. Long Index Alphabet. Auitor. 

Q fincc 



( loo ) 

fince that happened mo ft probably when the Clergy 
of France in i6ff. had fet him to work upon the 
New Teftament^ which was not printed 'till 1666. 
The Manufcripts he fays he faw might have been 
forgot or miflaid, when Cariophilus drew up the In- 
ventory of that Library : This is no extraordinary 
thing, or it might well have been depolited there 
fince, as it oft happens that after Catalogues are 
made, divers Manufcripts are recovered, and plac'd 
in Libraries : So that this Inventory concludes no- 
thing againfl F. Amelotte's account. 

MwEmlyn urges as a third reafon, That this Au- 
thor is not an accurate and credible witnefs. He 
cites for this Mr. Du Pin^ who fays F. Amelotte was 
not very exa6i\, and Mr. Simon^ who rcprefents him 
as a man whofe teftimonies ought not much to be re- 
lied on. I don't know whether Mr. Simon is more 
credible than F. Amelotte : Many perfons queflionit, 
and upon good grounds. The Clergy of France al- 
fembled at Paris in i6ff . being defirous to have a 
good Tranfiation of the New "Teftamcntin the French 
Tongue, and knowing no perfon more capable of 
that important Work than F. Amelotte^ deputed divers 
Bilhops of their own body to engage him to under- 
take that Tranfiation, he yields to their foUicitations 
and entreaties, and in 1666, this Tranfiation came 
abroad with his notes, attended with the approbation 
of feveral Bifhops. All this heightens much the 
merit of this Divine, and ihews the high efteem 
they had of him. Mr. ^ Dit Pin has not found him 
very cxaft in the places where he has found forne dif- 
ferences betwixt the L^//;^ Tranfiation, and the Ori- 
ental Verfions, and divers Manufcripts > but in what ? 
In refped of his notes. But 'tis one thing not to be 
perfectly exa£k in the choice of different readings, 
and another to have no integrity : Which Amelotte 
would not have had, was it not true, that he had 



* D\x Fin Dilfert. Prelim, fur la Bible, Lih.%, ch. 3. / i. 

' ' ''■"'"" " ■ found 



( I°I ) 

found in a Greek Manufcript of the Fatican a Text 
which was not there. 

We are now come at lall to the Berlin Manufcript : 
I contented my fclf with giving its antiquitv upon 
the teflimony of Sauhertui and jTollius^ two learned 
men, as recited by F. Long in his Biblioth. Sacr. 
ch. 5. of the Greek Manufcripts, and 1 had joyn'd 
with this the account Dr. Rettncr has given of a Let- 
ter from the celebrated Mr. Jahlonski^^'vd\o\Vi percei- 
ving an omiflion ni chat article, as it fhmds in my print- 
ed Book, concerning the pafTage in St.Jobn^ which 
Mr. Jahlonski Jiad lent word to Dr. Kcttner was in 
that Manufcript, without which it would have been 
to no purpofe to have quoted it. The omifTion rs 
very fenfible > no one ought to be furpriz'd that I 
didn't difcover it: An Author oft believes he kcs 
in his Copy what in reality is not there, when 
his mind is full with the idea. Mr. Emlyn has at- 
tempted to take an advantage from this omidionj 
I ought to have perceived it firlt j but in the main 
'twas eafy upon confideration to fee 'twas a mere 
omiilion. The Tranflator faw it plain, and made 
amends for it by giving the pad-ige this fole turn, 
""'lis fend to be alfo in a Manufcript at Berlin, 13 c, I 
am much oblig'd to him. 

To come then to the fa61:, I had quoted Sauher^ 
tus and ToJlius only in relation to the Manufcript it 
fclf, and Kettner with regard to the pafTage : His 
words are, There is a Greek M'^nufcript of the New 
Teflamenc /"// the King's Library at Berlin, "jery oldj 
on parchment^ in ^ great Letter s.^ and without accents^ 
in two Voluines^ "j)hich John Ravius, Frofejj'or at 
Upfiil, brought out of the Eafl^ and fold for 100 Rix» 
dollars : "The famous Mr. Jablonski has wrote me word 
the paJI'age is plainly there. Ac the fame time I was 
writing upon this fubjeft, I receiv'd a Letter from 
Berlin^ wherein 'twas fignificd that this Text was 

g' ' * * " i»»» III m^ ' • .. ^ ■ i I a 

• Ktttnir. Hift. difl. Johaun. i Ep. c. 5. ;?. 7. i" OnaaUs. 

O 2, " ia 



in tliar Maniifcriptj it could not naturally come in- 
to my mind, that 'twould one day be iirg'd againfl 
me, that 'twas not in the body of the Text, but 
only in the n^argin, as Mr. Ejitlyn affures us he knows 
from a good hand j ^ / have received information^ fays 
he, frcrm a very fiire hand^ that this Verfe is not in 
the Body of that Manufcript^ hut that it has beer? fin:e 
inferted in the margin. We muft believe, for Mr. 
Emlyris honour, that fome body has diverted him- 
{c\i with writing him this account > for nothing is 
more exprefriy falfe > and he can name no man, 
who has any reputation to lofe, that can have given 
him this information, as of his own knowledge. I 
have hereupon receiv'd new advices from Berlin , 
and thcfe are the very words of one of the Kind's 
Librarians, Locus i J oh. f . 7. in Novo Teftamento 
Gr£co Manufcripto^ quod Bcroli ni Blhliothcca Regia 
hahct^ extat in contcxtu : Dc antiquitate verb nihil 
certi afirmari potefi : that is, the pajjage of the fir ft 
Epiftle (?/ 6"/. John, ch. f . f j. is in the text of the 
Greek Manufcript of the INew Teflament in the 
King^s Library at Berlin, but we can affrm nothing 
certain concerning its antiquity. 

Whether this Manufcript be foo years old, or 
more, or Icfs, if they will have it fo, is a point to 
be difcufs'd by thofe learned Men, whofe particular 
Study has been about the Ink, the parchment, the 
form of the characters, and fuch other matters, 
whereby they judge almoil exadly oi the time a 
Manufcript was wrote in> and yet wnth all their 
knowledge and application they are oft miflaken 5 
we have mftances of it every day. 1 make my felf 
no party in- this affair 3 1 lland to what I quoted 
from F'Long: My quotation is faithful^ and what- 
ever be determined concerning the antiquity of the 
Copy, the palfage of St. ^ohn is found in it, and 
Hands in the body of the 1 ext 3 that's enough. 

• Pag. 30. 

Even 



(103 ) 

Even Icfs would fuffice •, fince the truth I main- 
tain has no need of the Berlin Manufcript ; after 
fo many proofs as I have produced, this lall comes 
not, as I may fay, 'till after the aftion : All I am 
to prove, is, that the Greek Editions of the New 
'Teftament^ wherein are read thefe important words, 
were made from Greek Manufcripts 5 now have I not 
given in the utmoil: evidence of this from the Ma- 
nufcript of the Complutenfian Edition, publifh'd 
about the year if 18. from the Codex Britannicus^ 
which influenc'd Erafmus^ who had not infcrted it 
in his two firlt Editions, to reftore it in the third in 
If 11. from a confiderable number of Manufcripts 
from which 'twas copied by R. Stephens^ and put 
into his Editions of if46. if4p. iffo. and iffi. 
Thefe are the proofs 1 urg'd, and yet, as we have 
fcen, thefe are not all : How then dares any one 
after this aflert the Text is in no one Manufcript ? 

^.J:/y^^y/^^y^^/y^<yy^ y»^/'yJi/'j^/'AsV/,^?j^^ ?a^'/^^a,.-z^/aS:9m^^^ yJ^?/Jiy/Ji'/J^*/^^jJ^ 

Chap. XV. 
Thfs fame truth ^ viz. that th'isText was m 
the antieyit Greek Manufcripts prov'd 
from a pajfage in St, Athanallus'.^ S'y- 
nopfis^ and from a quotation of a very 
ancient Divine of the Greek Church. 

HEN forc'd to allow, that the Text of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Gholl in the 
firft Epiftlc of St. John is found in a great 
number of Latin Manufcripts of that Epi- 
lile, and that it was cited by feveral famous Bilhops 
againft the Avians^ the refuge is to maintain, that 
however it has been cited by no Greek. Was this 
fo, the Text would lofe but one proof, which may 
well be difpens'd with, fince there are found {o ma- 




( I04 ) 

ny others r But yet this is not wanting. I have pro- 
duc'd two authorities, one from the Synopfis of St.yf- 
thanafius^ and another from a very ancient Dialogue 
under the feign'd names of Athanafiiis and Arius. 

The pafTage of the Synopfis upoji the firfl Epiflle 
fays, that St. John thete Jljews the uniiy of the Son 
with the Father > but this^ faid I, is only Ihewn m 
the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter : Mr. Emlyn 
coming to this quotation, pag. ^8. has been pleas'd 
to anfwer, that it has been obferv'd to be no plain 
evidence of any regard to this 7'ext^ let the Author be 
who it will. To know the bottom of this remark, 
we mull turn back to page the third of his Anf'wer^ 
where he fays^ the fpurious Synopfis Scriptura: among 
Athanafius'j IVorks^ by faying^ that St. John fhews 
us the Unity of the Son with the Father, gives no 
ground to fay^ that this uncertain Author had this 
'Text in his Eye-, probably it refers rather to fome other 
^ajjages (to ch. z. 23. J or to the eighth verfe 7?2yflically 
interpreted^ &c. Hozvever^ who^ or at what tinie^ this 
Author^ whether Greek or Latin, was-^ is not known. 

It appears by all this, that Mr. Emlyn was under 
no fmall difficulty •, he keeps clofe to nothing. 
^his Author^ fays he, may have had his Eye in the 
twenty 'third verfe of the fecond Chapter y but does 
this vt\{cfloew the unity of the Son with the Father? 
On the other hand, this Author had already given 
the fubfiance of the fecond chapter, and having 
pafs'd from that to the third, and from the thud 
to the fourth, he was at lalt come to the fifth, and 
'tis upon the f th he lays, that St. John fl:iews the 
unity of the Son with the Father. There's no going 
back. Very well ! be it fo 5 will Mr. Emlyn fay, 
ho'wcvcr probably it refers to the eighth verfe myflically 
interpreted. No, this is in no wife probable 5 for 
bcfides that there is nothing in this Synopfis, nor 
its Author , which gives us to undcrfiand , that 
he was acquainted with that myftical expofition of 
the eighth verft, of w Jiich Mr. Emlyn has fo often 

ipofce. 



( '05 ) 

rpokc, this Synopfis has nothing to do with cxpofi- 
tions, but is contin'd to the cxprefs Texts of Saint 
John. 

But who was the Author of this Synopfis? inhoy 
adds Mr. EmJyn^ or at what time^ this Author^ whc^ 
ther Greeks;- Latin, waSr^ is not kuovjn: The lall, 
but poor fubterfuge, againit the Synopfis. Down 
to oiu" days it has been luok'd on as St. Jtharia^ 
fus'Sj and diviTs learned men do yet effeem it his : 
Others think 'tis not j I'm unacquainted with their 
reafons, but yet they all declare 'tis very ancient, 
and the kail favour ^ F. Montjaucon bellows on it, 
\^ to lay, that 'tis 800 years old. As to what Mr. 
Emiyn fays, that we know not whether its Author 
was a Greek or Latiyi j 'tis apparently himfclf alone, 
who do's not know it, becaufe perhaps he will not 
know it, and I don't believe he ever read of any 
fufpicions form'd about it. 'Tis therefore a matter 
which remains very fure, that the Text concerning 
the Unity of the Son "with the Father ^ mentioned in 
the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter of Sr. Johri's 
firll Epillle, was receiv'd as the Text of that Apo- 
ftle, either by St. Athanafius^ or fuch another Grtek 
Divine, of great antiquity, and even more anciejit 
than any Greek Manufcripts wc at prefenc have of 
j;hat Epiftle : I have no need of more than that. 

We find among the Works of the fame Athana- 
ftus a Diak^gue betwixt him and Ariiis^ la which 
thefe two names ferve only for Interlocutors, as in 
the Dialogues of Figilius Biihop of 'Tapftim^ to re- 
prcfent an Orthodox Chriftian^ and an Arian difpu- 
ting together upon the myilery of the Trinity. 
The Orthodox lays to the Arian^ we receive remif- 
fion of Sins by Baptifm^ in the form of which are 
namd the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofi-, and 
St. John hath faid^ These three are one. 
I have defended this palVage againit the two only 



• Praefat. ad I'alssol. Grssc. 

ICafons 



( io6 ) 

reafons urgM agalnfl it 5 the one, that he is rather a 
Latm Writer, who wrote in Greek^ than a real 
Greek 5 and the other, that he might have had in 
view the words of the eighth verfe ; For this idle 
fancy is always fure to be raention'd, when there's 
nothing elfe to anfwer. Here again Mr. ^^i^/)';?, to 
extricate himfelf from the difficulty, has taken upon 
him to fay, againft all appearance of reafon, ^ Air, 
Martin does not know hut he was a Latin, tho"* he 
thinks he poffihly might he a Greek. I don't flridly 
know what he means by ^lying, that I am uncer^ 
tain whether this Author was a Greek or a Latin ^ 
and that I barely think he might poffibly have been 
a Greek. I have on the contrary fo validly refuted 
their Opinion, who would fufpecl him to be a La- 
tin^ that I can'c conceive how it could come into 
Mr. Emlyn's head, that I had the leaft doubt con- 
ccming it, and that I am not fully convinc'd this 
Writer was a Greek : Let but any one read the 
149^^' and ifo^^^ pages of my Dijfertation. The 
Book is in Greek^ it has been written eleven hun- 
dred or a thoufand years ago j no man has ever ycc 
been able to prove the Author a Latin j the Book 
then fpeaks for it felf. 

Mr. Emlyn here again returns to his favourite fup- 
pofition, that the Author of the Dialogue might 
have had in view the words of the eighth verle : 
but he returns fuch a way as no body had ever 
found out before him. In the Greek Dialogue we 
read, 0/ t^«$- 75 ev «V/v, this 1^3 eV, fays he, agrees with 
the eighth verfe, 'tis but adding ek before 173, and 
then you will have the eighth verfe. Hitherto 
Criticks had paid fuch regard to the Manufcripts, 
as to add nothing to the places where they all agree, 
but if Mr. Emlyn's example is follow'd, we fliall be 
no more flraitned fo hereafter} and when we want 
in any paffage a word which can change the fenfe 



( 107 ) 

of it, and put m its (lead what wc would havr to 
be there 5 'tjs but to add that word, and the bu- 
finels is done; The word ek is here wanting ; with- 
out it the feventh vciTeis hinted at j but we wouM 
have it refer to the eighth, add but this word there, 
and freight the eighth verfe is rei'err'd to; /We (ay 
then, 'tis an omiffion, let us place this word theic; 
The invention is commodious, but 'twill never iuit 
with right rcalbn. 

Cha p. XVI. 

77:^^ Coyifejpon of Faith; and PuhUck- 
Service Books of the Greek Church 
defended again jl Mr. Emlyn, with 
regard to the w'ltnejjes hi Heaven 
mentioned in St, John's Epifile, 

f^^i^l R O M the quotation of this Text by 
pr& very ancient Greek Writers, I pafs'd to 
-^.._J^.i the more modern Greeks^ and lliew'd 
^I^Ml they had inferted it into their Confcflion 
of- Faith, and Publick Offices. Mr. Emlyn fays, 
this may be \ but why does not he frankly own, 
that lo it is, fmce he has nothing to urge iigainfl 
the proofs 1 have given of it ? He has upon this a 
very pleafant cvafion: '7/j hut^ fays he, of late date* 
Firll, 'tis not true to fay its not ancient; the tclti- 
inony I quoted from the Ritual intituled 'AtoVoAoc, 
is very ancient ; I have fliewn 'tis at ieaft as 010 as 
the fiith Century. And befides, both as to the 
Ritual and the Confeflion of Faith of the Greek 
Churches, the force ot the pi oof coniiUsin this, that 
the Churches, which gave this Text a place in fuch 
publick A(5i:s of their Religion, have not done lo wtth- 
out having read it in U^cir Greek Manufcripts ot 



( io8 ) 

St. yohn'sEp\{\.\e', and i^'itbe (aid, they have done 
fo without having read it, it lies upon thofe who 
fhall have the aflurance to charge 'em with fo odi- 
ous an imputation to prove their Aflertionj which 
is what they will never do. Let thefe Rituals then, 
and this Confeffion of Faith be, if they will have it 
fo, modern pieces, will the pafTage cited in them be 
one whit the lefs ancient on that account ? The fal- 
fity of this confequence is apparent. Our Con- 
feffions of Faith of England^ Scotland^ France^ Hol- 
land.^ and other R.eform'd Countries, are but of the 
fixteenth Century, which was the age of our moll 
happy Reformation > but would it follow from 
thence that the pafTages of Holy Scripture, v/hich 
are quoted therein, are not ancient, and as ancient 
as the Scripture it felf from whence they are taken ? 
Upon this head of the Greeks^ I will here recall 
what I have pafs'd over in fpeaking of the Codex 
Britanniciis of Erafmus. Mr. Simon has imagined 
that the Text Erafmus has copied from this Manu- 
fcripr, might well have been taken from the Greek 
of the CouncW o^ Latr an 'y in order to refute this 
vain conceit I mention'd four differences, which 
are found betwixt the Greek of the Council, and 
the Text of the Codex Britannicus^ they are to he 
feen di{lin6lly fet down in the i 38^^^ page of my 
Dijfertation : Mr. Emlyn has meddled only with the 
lad of the four, where, by a new Giammatical 
Obfervation he pretends the Greek word Wto/, 
which is in the Council's Tranflation of this paf- 
fage, was put there by an error of the prefs for the 
word ?To/, which is in the Manufcript oi England^ 
and every where elfe > and this by virtue of the 
circumflex and the afpirate fet over ^'rof in this man- 
ner ^ , which approaches very near to a r 3 and 
that this pretended ^ was drawn down from the 
top of the word ^ro/, to be plac'd in the begin- 
ning of the word ts/to/, and fo to make a t, in 
bringing along with it a new accent, and lofing 

its 



C 109 ) 

its afplrate in Its dcTcent j for all this is ncccfTary 
to ground this curious remark upon. It may be 
well imigin'd I fha'n't trouble Mr. Emlyn much 
upon this affair, 'tis a matter which dcferves on- 
ly to be I'lugh'd at : But he muft give me leave 
to ask him why he has faid nothing upon the 
other three differences, which I have taken no- 
tice of betwixt the Greek of the Manufcript in 
E'tg.a-'ii^^ and the Greek in the Tranflation of the 
Latrad Council : This makes one believe he had 
nothmg to anfwer. The Texts of the fcventh and 
eighth veiTcs are plac'd immediately one after the 
other m the A61:s of that Council, as in the Epi- 
ftle of St. John 3 the place they fland in may make 
us look on 'em as inferted there by the very Au- 
thors of the Council, or as being cited by Joachim 
himfelf, whom the Council condemned 3 I have an 
firll view given in to the firll thought 3 if anyone 
prefers the fecond, as the more natural, I acquicfce 
with all my heart : The feventh verfe will be never 
the more or lefs in the A6ts of the Council upon 
that account, and that's all that is here effential ; 
fince the point we are upon concerns only the fa£t 
it felf J and the quotation, by whomfoever made, 
is a proof of the fad. 




ChA Fi 



(xio) 

Chap. XVII. 
That Afr. Emlyn has had ^lothtngfoTtdto 
an/wer to the Solutions I have given 
the ohjeBinns tirgdagamji thispajfage. 

^^^i^HO' I had fufficientlv pftablifh'd the au- 
fc T ^^1^ ^^^^'"i^'ckiielsof the paHage of St. John in 
t© » ihe firlt part of my Diflertation^ I did 
^b: ;-%! not omir to examine, m a lecond part, 
tlie mc'il 'pecious objc6i:ions the adverfaries of this 
\ Trige bring agamtl it. Mr. Emlyn has pretended 
to reply to the folutions I had given to thefe objecti- 
ons, but has Olid nothing upon any of 'em that de- 
fervcs a confiiration. However, that he may not 
turn my filcnce to his own advantage, I will here 
Ipend a h\v moments in the examination of what he 
has faid upon every one of my anfwers to thefe ob- 
jedions. 

The firll, and moit fpecious of all, is^ ^ that this Text 
is wanting in the Greek Manufcripts, and the ancient 
Oriental Verfions. As to the Gr^^/^ Manufcripts, this 
Objection fell of it felf, after the demonftrative proofs 
I had brought, and which we have here jull: repeated, 
that 'tis only m fome Manufcripts this Text is wanting, 
iince I have ihewn it to be in thofe o^Valla^ oiComplu- 
ium^ of Erajmus^ of R. Stephens^ and others. But be- 
caufe 1 had faid, chiefly upon theoccafionof the Fati- 
can -d^ndi Alexandrian Manufcripts^whrch are reputed the 
molt ancient, that thefe two Manufcripts want feveral 
other Texts alfo, Mr. Emlyn anfwers, that this make§ 
nothing for the prefent purpofe, becaufe a Text which 
is in no one Manufcript, is of no authority, fuppoling 
thus that the paffage in St. John\ Epiltie is in none. 
Etitthis is no anfwer to my folutionsj 'tis to throw the 



« Piffert, f.^, I. 



(lit ) 

queftion into the condition 'twas in at firfl, altoge- 
ther as if I had own'd the Text to be in no Manii- 
fct ipts, or had produc'd no proof of its being in any 
or that 'twas recciv'd as genuine by all the ancient 
Fathers, who urg'd it againll thejrlaf/s. 

As to theanfwers I gave in relation to the Oriental 
Verdons, wherein this Text was omitted, WwEmlyn 
has not thought fit to advance any thing againd Vm. 

He had obie6ted in his Inquiry againll this Text, 
that the Councils of Nice and Sardlca had made no ufe 
of it againll the Avians. I clear'd up this matter fo 
fully, ^ that Mr. Emlyn lets all pafs, and contents him- 
felf with %ing over again, that this paflage would 
have been extremely uieful againll the Avians^ as be- 
ing a proof of the Trinity. I don't love to repeat the 
fame things, 'tis too tirefomc for the Reader, and too 
inlipid for a man who thinks he can employ his time 
better : He ought either to confute what I have wrote 
upon that Suject, or fay nothing at all. 

A third objection had took up a whole chapter in 
my Dijfertation > this was, that the Text had not 
been cited by any of the Greek or Latin Fathers of 
the firfl ages j as I had obferv'd the anonymous Wri- 
ter, who is now MwEmlyn^ then pretended, as he 
continues to do in his late Anfwer, that the proofs of 
this Text taken from the fifth and following Centu- 
ries, were not very confiderable 3 I had made fome 
obfervations upon this vain pretence, the weaknefs 
of which is felf-cvidcnt, that Mr. EmJyn ought to 
have confuted, had he been able 3 he has been fo 
artful as not to touch upon 'em. As for the ancient 
Greek Writers j the Authors of the Sy no pfis^ and the 
Dialogue betwixt Athmafms and Arius^ are fure 
witnefles that the Text in their days was in the Apo- 
flle's Epiftie \ there's no more returning to this 
Shift, the fad- is demonflrated. And forthc Zrt//>j-, 
?cis UiCouceiveable that any man fnould hav^fuch aa 

* Dillert. P<?rf. z. c^.2. b ch, 3, 

exceffive 



cxceffive aHurance, as to deny that St. Eucheriusj 
Vigilius of Tapfum^ and the three or four hundred 
jifrican Bifhops own'd this Text to be part of Saint 
John's Epiftle. 

It had been objefted in the fourth place, That 
certain ancient Writers had cited the words of the 
eighth verfe without thofe of the feventh, upon oc- 
caflons, wherein the words of the feventh would 
have been more proper 3 from whence they infer'd, 
they were not in thofe days in the Epiftle they now 
are. I had anfwer'd, the particular fubjeft did not 
require it, nnd Mr. Emlyn owns, that this has fome- 
timcs b( eii adlually the cafe 5 here then one part of 
the icflimonies aliedg'd in proof are abandoned, as not 
comirg up to the purpofe they were produc'd for. 
He confines himfelf to St.Cjr/Vand St. Auguftin^ but 
yet even here he has been willing to fpare himfelf 
the pains of confuting my anfwers. This, however, 
was what he ought properly to do. After thefe two 
he brings us back to Facundusj without having taken 
off any thing I had aliedg'd > thefe are meer repeti- 
tions. 

They had urg'd, that no ancient Commentator on 
St. John's Epiftle had fpoke of this paftage. Thefe 
ancient Commentators are reduc'd to four, the firft: 
of which, Clement of Alexandria^ had wrote a Com- 
ment upon the feven Canonical Epiftles, which has 
been loft feveral hundred years ago : We have only 
fome Latin Scholia remaining, and which are fo de- 
fedlive, that one half of the Texts is wanting in 'em : 
The other is Didymus^ of Alexandria alfo, and what 
"We have of his I have ftiewn to be rather the frag- 
ments and broken remnants of a Work, than the 
Work it felf. Mr. Emlyn then ought to confefs, 
with refpeft at leaft to thefe two Greeks^ that reafoq 
was on my fide, and that thefe Ihould no longer be 
urg'd as Commentators, to prove the Text of the 
witnefTes in Heaven was not in St. ^c?^/^'s Epiftle. 



C "3 ) 

The grand effort is here upon Bede^ who flou- 
rifh'd in the eighth Century, and who having com- 
mented on St. Jchns Epilllc, has faid nothing con- 
cerning this pafTage. I have flievv'd we could not 
conclude from thence the paffage was not in the 
Apoitle's Epiftle, becaufe I had demonftratively 
prov'd that St. Cyprian^ about the middle of the 
third Centurv, St. jercm in the fourth, St. Ruche- 
ri^^j towards the middle of the fifth, Figilius and the 
other y^fric an Bifhops, towards theclofe of the fame 
Age, and St. Fulgentius in the fixth, had read it in 
their Bibles. Bede liv'd partly in the feventh Age, 
being born, according to Dr. Caz-e in his Hiftoria 
Lhteraria^ in the year 672, and partly in the dghth. 
The time of his death is not abfolutely certain, fome 
place it in the year 761, othei's in 765. Dr. Ca'ue 
thinks it mod probable to be in the year 755- . The 
Ordo Romanus^ w^hich had the Text of the Epillle 
of St. John^ was drawn up about the year 750. Near 
the fame time Authhert^ Abbat of St. Vincent^ re- 
cites this Text, fo does alfo Ifidorus Mercaior : Al- 
cuinus^ ^f^/^'s Scholar, infertsit into therevife of the 
Latin Bibles : Bede liv'd exa6lly in the mid ft, be- 
tween thefe times > he approaches near the age of 
St. Fulgent ius^ who went before him 3 he liv'd and 
wrote m the fame age, and almoll in the fame 
years with the others, who were fomewhat his 
juniors : The pafllige of the witncfics in Heaven 
is found in the Bibles of all thefe 3 and yet fome 
will even dare to fay , that 'twas not extant in 
Bede's time, under the pretext that Bcdc has not 
quoted it j they might as well tell us 'tis dark at 
noon-day. 

The laft of the Commentators, whofe filcncc is 
urg'd againfl us is Oecumenius : I have anfwcr'd this 
Objcd'.on, and Mr. Emlyn does nothing more than 
fay over-again, that 1 have not prov'd this Text was 
in St. John's Epiftle in Oeaonenius^ time, who liv'd 
at the clofe ot the tenth Century, or beginning of 

the 



( 114 ) 

the eleventh. What pity- .'tis that we mufl: be con- 
tinually repeating the fame things over and over? 
-'Let us now leave to MwEmlyn the forry employ- 
ment of cxerciling his mind and pen in defending, as 
\Vell as he can, fo deplorable a caufe as his is j or 
rather, let us content our felves with deilring that the 
truth may at length reach even to him, and that ac- 
knowledging with us the authenticknefs of St. John's 
pafllige, both he and we may ever hereafter be em- 
ploy'd in worfhipping with one heart and one mind, 
the Holy Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghoft, in one only and the fame God, .blefled for 
ever- more • which Trinity is fo evidently demon- 
fti'ated to us in this pafTage, 



FINIS. 



If -^ ^ •^ h|h 4^ 4^ 4^ 4" 4" 4^ 4'' ^ "^ ■^ T* "^ 4* 4'' 4^ ■*!* ^•'' 4^ ^ ^J^ 4* ""^ ^ "^ 



BOOKS Printed for William <a!;?^ John Innys. 

A Critical Differtation upon the feventh Verfe of the fifth Chapter of 
St. John's firft Epiftle', There are Three th-at bear Recoid in Hea- ' 
evu,&c. Wherein the Authenticknefs of this, Text is fully prov'd againft 
the Objeftions of Mr. Simon and the ir.odern Arians. Written origi- 
nally ill French by Mr. Martin, and now tranflated into Englift, , 
06lavo, 1719. ' * . ' ,. . 

A (econd DilTertation by -Mr. Martin, in Defence of the Teftimony 
given to our' Saviour by Jofephus. Wherein^ the Paragraph, in the 
fourth Chapter of the eighteenth Book of >his Jewifli Antiquities is. 
proved to be authentick. Written originally in French, and now Trau" 
ilatcd into EngliQi, ,0<Stavo, 1719 . ..,,".■ 
' Examen de Ja Reponfe de M^'. Emlyn, a la Diflertation Critique 
furle verfct 7. c:u ch. 5. -de la i.'^Epiftre de S. Jean j 11 y en a trois 
qui rend eat le'moignage dans le Ciel, &c, Tar M^ Maitin, Pafteur dc 
rEglife Ftancoife d'Utrecht, 



f/0 

A 

REPLY 

T O 

Mt> MartiiiV Examination 

O F T H E 

ANSWER 

T O 

His Dissertation on i John 

5.7., There are three that bear Record in 
Heaven^ the father^ the Son^ and the Holy 
Ghofiy and thefe three are one. 

By Thomas E m l y n. 

LONDON'. 

Printed by ]• Darby in Bartholomew- Clofc, 
and fold by John Noon near Mercers 
Chappel in Cheapfide, ^/^^A. Dodd without 
Temple-Bar. M.DCCXX. 

Price 6 d. 



C J ] 






J[ Reply to Mr. Martin's 
Examination^ &c. 

The Introduction. 

^^^'^:IS not my Dedgn to make this Reply 
mf^^i equal in Length to Mr. Martins Exa- 
■ 'T J^j mination : He has mingled fo many 
M^3= long hiftorical Narrations concerning 
^-^ late Authors j has introduced his Ar- 
guments with fuch fiourifhing Preambles-^ and 
afterwards confirms them with fo many high Com- 
mendations^ that I find a great deal which 1 need 
take no notice of. 

I pretend not to fay that I am not miftakea 
in any accidental Matter whatever : and therefore 
if I neglefted to diftinguifh Eucherius^ from the 
African Bi(hops,when he liv'd in an Ille on the op- 
pofite Coaft ^ or if I had miftaken, in calling the 
Xlth Age St. Bernard's Time, inftead of the 
Xllth, it had been no great Matter *, for as to 
this, Mr. Martin himfelf had faid. That toward 
the end of the eleventh Century^ St. Bernard quoted 
this Text in ynany of his Writings^. And I thought 
\ had been very fure that he could not make 
very many Quotations an Age before he was 

^ DiJJertat. ch. 3. 

A 2 borni 



4 ' J KuplY to 

born *, and fo I ventur'd to fay he livM in that 
eleventh Age in which he wiote: but Mr. Martin 
corrects me, faying, -f- Nor dtd 5f. Bernard live in 
the Xlth, btit the jcilth Jge. Whereas the truth 
of ihe whole Matter is juft the contrary ^ for 
he was born towards the_ end of the Xith Age, 
(^Ajino 1091, fays Dx-Cave) fo that he did not 
quote thU Textm the Xlth Age, which Mr. Martin 
hasafRrm'd, but yet he did live inifie Xlth Age, 
which he denies ^ fo little Caution does he nfe in 
what he writes. Bat V pafs on to what more 
nearly affefts our main Argument. 

1 obferve two things in Mr. A/^mVs Entrance 
upon his Work, in his very firit Leaf, that are a 
little furprizing : 

1. That he fhould prefume to fay, p. 2. That 
the ttniverfal antient Church has fuppofed this Text 
to contain the Dofirine of the Trinity of Perfons in 
the Godhead ; when 'tis not pretended to be once 
mention'd by any one of the antient Greek 
Church or Writers*, and but once ^V pretended, 
with any, and that very little, colour, to be 
quoted by any Latin till the fifth Century. If 
this amount to a Teftimony of the univerfal 
antient' Church J I dare engage to produce her 
Teftimony, and one much more ample, for many 
ilrange things which Mr. Martin would not believe. 

2. I wonder, that when he will not conteft 
againft the Arians from the lafl V/ords, Thefe 
three are one^ whether they don't mean only an 
Vnity of Teftimony^ he ihould yet think them 
diftrefs'd by provii.g the Father, Son, and Spirit, 
to be three Perfons from their being three Witneffes j 
and that I, for this Reafon, was in a Mifiake^ 
in faying, the Words, if genuine, were as favou- 
rable to them caWd Ariansj as to any; and adds 

•I* Examin, ch. 5, 



Mr* Martin'i Examination, &c. 5 

/ know not whence he learned that the Arians ever 
believed the Holy Spirit to be a Ptrfon really fubfi ft png. 
And truly I as little know whence it is that 
he has not learn'd it, except it be from lus not 
having look'd much into the Controverfy, how 
much or how forcibly foever he may have written 
upon it, as his Treface tells us. And I dare 
'allure him, that if he have no occafion for this Text 
but to prove the M/y 5pmf a Pcrfon, thofecall'd 
jiriafis will grant him the Benefit of it in fome 
other Text moreexprefs •, and he has lefsreafon 
to feek for it here, where the Water and Blood are 
called WltneJfesMo^ which yet are not Perfons. 

I obferve alfo, that Mr. Martin ^ reckons it a 
mighty Advantage, that this Text h^s been found 
ftho not conltantly, as he fays) tn the Latin Blblei 
cfthe Weftern Churches^ from the Jge when Printing 
began, upwards to the dghth Century: which with 
me, I confefs, is of fmall account, when the 
Inquiry is, whether ever it was in the Greek 
Original, or in the Bibles of the firft: Ages*, 
which is not to be proved by its being now in 
thofe of the latter times. 

And tho he fays a Text does not lofe its Au- 
thority becaufe the Manufciipts vary, yet the 
learned and judicious win allow me to tell him, 
that when, as he fuppofes, any Texts are varied, 
or are wanting in divers Manufrripts of the (rreateft 
Jintiquity^ tho re^d in ethers^ (which is not the 
Cafe of our Text) their Authenticknefs as to us, 
becomes lefs certain and more doubtful in pro- 
portion to the want of Evidence of thrj^ Ge- 
nuin^enefs : and yet Mr. Martin is not {0 ingenuous 
as once to confefs this Text to be fo much as 
doubtful^ tho wanting In all the known Creek Ma- 
nufcripts, without any Difagreenfient or Varia- 

J Examin. ch. xi. 

tion *, 



6 J Reply to 

lion •, but always fpeaks of it as mod certainly 
fijf^mine^ proved by indi/putable Witnejfes^ and by a 
^-rreat Variety of Proofs^ every one of which is cori' 
dufive^ rcithout the j^Jfiftance of the refiy and the 
like : in which as I believe he is almoft lingular, 
lb it fhall not affright me from purfuing my Argu- 
ments for the contrary. 

The Sum of my Argument againft Mr. Martin 
in relation to this T'ext^ was in three Conclufions : 

1. That no one antient nor genuine Greek 
Writer mentions this Text upon any Occalion 
whatever. To which he oppofes only two Paf. 
fages of fome uncertain counterfeit Athafiafiiu, 
but relies more upon fome of the Latins^ 

2. That, among fo many which want the Verf^y 
there is not one antient Greek Manufcript pro- 
duced to countenance its AdmiHion into the Text* 
To this he has oppofed one Manufcript at Berlin:^ 
of which he has made fome Pretences of a fliuffling 
Defence. 

3. That we have no well attefled Evidence, 
or fatisfactory Account, of any one having for- 
merly feen any fuch Greek ManujR;ript, tho it 
has been much prefumed, and in general Terms 
faid, there were /iJ/T^e. To this he has oppofed 
Robert Stephens's Manofcripts, attefted, as he 
thinks, by Bez^a \ and.alfo St, JerotTj's Teftimony, 
taken from his Preface^ and his Ferfion oi the 
>^ew Teftament. 

Thefe three principal Points, with which 
fome fmallcr things will naturally ftand or fall, 
I Pnall again confider and defend, that 1 may 
confirm the abovefaid three Conclufions. Only I 
intend to leave that about the Greek and Latin 
Fathers to the lafl: Place, and begin with the 
Secondy concerning the Berlin Manufcript, which 
foimcriy 1 was not fully informed of. 

CHAPe 



Mr. Martin'/ Examination, &e. tjr 



CHAP, I. 

ji true Account of the Berlin Mmufcrift^ 
which Mr. Martin [nys is refuted to he 500 
Tears old \ and his very disingenuous Conceal^ 
z/^ent of the Evidence he had of the contrary. 

I HAVE arga'd againft the Authority of 
I John 5.7- that 'tis not found in any one 
antient Greek Manufcript btfore Printing, as far 
as yet appears to the learned World : So that ic 
feems to have been inferted in the publick Im- 
preflions without any good Warrant. Mr. A/. 
on the contrary tells us, that 'tis in a Manufcript 
at Berlin in the King's Library, refuted 5C0 Tears 
cld^'y and that /^ le Long gives this Account 
upon the Teftimony ^/Saubertus and Tollius ; and 
JDr, Kettner relates the fame^ &c. This indeed 
was fomething to the purpofe, if true. But 
when I look'd into F. le Long and TolUusj 1 found 
not a word of this Account there i neither that 
the Manufcript was reputed to he 500 Te^rs old^ 
nor that the PafTage of St. John is in it, (tho 
this latter proves in fadl to be true:) Hereupon i 
thought it meet to make fome further Enquiry 
about this Berlin Co^^. 

Underftanding there was a Gentleman from 
Berlin then at London ^ capable of giving a good 
Account of this Matter, 1 defir'd a Friend, who 
was likely to fee him, to ask him about if, 
which he did, and brought me for an Anfwer, 
that the Text in difpute was only in the Margin 
of the Berlin Greek Manufcript. Whether the 



Dijf«rfaf, ch. viii* 



8 J Reply to 

Queftion put, or the Gentleman's Anfwer to if 
was miftaken, I know not •, but it feems by the 
following Letter, here was an Error, and I was 
miiinform'd as to the Gr^f^ Manufcript ^ it being 
only the noted Latin Manufcript which wanted 
this Verfe in the Text, bat had it in the Margin. 
Mv, M. who it appears knew the whole Matter 
(more than he had the Ingenuity to confefs) con- 
firms one part of his Account by frefli Advice 
from Berlin^ * viz,» that the Pajfage, i John 5. 7. 
is in the Text of the Greek Manufcript ; but the 
other part, Tjim. the Antic^uity of the ^^»z/y?rfp/-, 
(without which the other is nothing at all) is in 
a manner given up by his Friend, who adds, but 
we can affirm nothing certain concerning its Anti^ 
qvity, 1 wiQi Mr. M- had let us know whether 
this was all that in this Letter was faid relating 
to the Manufcript^ and whether his Correfpon- 
dent, who could fay nothing for its Antiquity^ 
did not at the fame time acquaint him with 
Arguments of its Novelty^ which in juftice ought 
not to be concealed by an honeft Inquirer after 
the Truth. 

Immediately after the foremention'd Words 
of the Letter from Berlin^ Mr. Ai» adds a Para- 
graph, in which I prefently thought I difcerned 
the Maiks of great Difingenuity, Confufion, 
and Guilt. Whether^ fays he, this Manufcript be 
500 Tears oU^ or more^ or lefsy if they will have it 
fo^ is a Point to he difcuffed by thofe learned Men^ 
whofe particular fludy has been about the In\^ the 
Parchment^ the form of the CharaEiers^ andfuch other 
Matters^ whereby they judge almofl exa^ly of the 
time a Manufcript wa^ wrote in \ and yet are oft 
mifluhen, I make my f elf no Party in this Affair \ I 
fiand to what I quoted from F. Long : My Quotation 

1^ His Examination of Mr, Em's, Anfwer^ ch. xiv» 



Mr. Martini Examiiiation, d'c g 

is faithful \ and whoever he determined concerning 
the jintiquity of the Copy^ the Pajfage of St. Joho is 
found in it., and ftands in the Body of the Text j 
that^s enough : Even lefs would fuffice \ fmce the 
Truth 1 maintain has no need of the Berlin Manu" 
fcrip. Here is fuch (hifcing and fhaffliiig, faying 
and unfaying, laying all on the Back of F. Long., 
(who yet had noc faid what Mr. AUrtin quotes 
him for, as (hall be fhewn) fuch a modeft Wil*- 
lingnefs to be content with the Truth of one 
half of his own AlTertion, that yet was utterly 
infignificant by icfelf^ nay, to be content with- 
out any part of it, and to account it enough tho 
it were nothing at all ^ that I had reafon to 
fufpeft here was fomething very unfair, if the 
true State of the 5^r//« Copy could be fully known* 
Having the Happinefs of an intelligent Friend, 
who held Correspondence with a very learned 
and eminent Perfon in Saxony., I obtained the 
favour of him to write to his Correfpondent to 
enquire into this Matter ^ who received (and 
tranfmitted hither in the Original) the following 
Letter from the celebrated Mr. La Croz.e^ the 
learned Library-Keeper of the King of Prvffta 5 
in which, with the Candor and Ingenuity^ be- 
coming a Perfon of Integrity and true Learn*- 
ing, he has given this full Account of the Manu- 
fcript under his Care. 

Vir j4mplijjlmey 

MA L O difcas ex litteris meis ea quae 
nomine C/. C- flagitas, ouanlabeo 

ipfo, ad quern, utpote ad virum mihi minus cog- 
nitum, litteras deftinare nolui. Miror Codi- 
cem noftrom, librum nuUins audtoritatis, alle- 
rendae dubiae ledioni idoneum videri, cum jam 
ego compluribus viris eruditis, ipfique Re"e- 
rendo Martina^ manifeftum fecerim^ eum Codi- 
cem, qui falfarii cujufdam fraude pro antiquo 



lO A V^tVhY to 

' venditus eft, & venditatur, manu recenti ex 
^ Editione Polyglotta Complutenjt fMQ defcriptum. 
' Id ftatim vidi cum Anno MDCXVI. ^ Biblio- 
' thecam Regiim peregrinorum more, non enini 

* tunc me moras ^^ro/^w^ fa6:urum putabam, per-' 

* luftrarem,dixique palam Hendreichio iref f/an^ixrij ; 
' idqae, ex quo Bibliotheca mihi credita eft, 
' caadide apud omnes profeflus fum ^ neque id 

* ignorat CI. & Reverendus Martintu^ cui idem 

* meo nomine fignificatum eft. 

* Hie ergo babes compendium Quaeftiorum tua- 

* rum : Quicodicemeditum Complutenfem \id\X., is 

* vidit 6c Manufcriptum Codicem noftrum, ne 

* demptis quidem mendis typographotum, quae 

* fcriba indodus ita fideliter expreffir, ut omnino 

* conftet hominem illiteratum ab erudito aliquo 

* nebulone ei fraudi perficiendae fuifle prsefedum. 

* Et fane pro antiquo liber ilk venditus eft, 
' immani etiam pretio, etfi membrane recenti 
' adhuc calx, live creta ilia inbaereat, qux pel- 

* libus vitulinis parandis adhiberi folet : atra- 

* mentum ubique albicans, demptis aliis criteriis, 
' fraudi agnofcendse fufEceret. 

' Qaicunque ergo ad hunc codicem provocat, is 

* cm iiino fe nihil agere norit. Certe quod ad me at- 
' tinet, pertenax fum fidei Nkena^ &: Orthodoxse.'; 

* at illi tuend^e abfit ut fraudes unquam adhibeam. 
' Caeterum verfm 7. eodem tenore in Codice illo 
' legitur quo 6 6c 8, nee quicquam margin! 
' adfcriptum eft. Islullos alios novi teftamenti 

* Codices G'r^cf^j Manufcriptos habemus; Latinos 
' vero quam plurimos, fed recentiores j inter 

* quos quidam eft bonas notse ex antiquiffimo, 
' ut mihi conftat, defcriptus, in quo verfus oda- 

* vus fextum ftatim excipit, addito tamen fep- 

* timo in margine ab eadem manu. Hxc habui, 

* qu^ refcriberem alio vocatus, eodem tamen 



? Read MDCCXVI. 

' mo« 



Mr. MartinV Examination, &c, ii 

* momento, quo litterse tu^e ad me delate funt: 

• nee plura in prgcfenti addere licet, nili quod 
^ me benevolentise tuce iterum, iterumque com- 
' mendo. 



j^mplljfimi nominis tui ftudlopjfimum^ 

Berolfni, prid'te Cal. Januar. 

MDCCXX. e»em annum ^ y L^ Croze. 

tibt fauftum^ er Jelicem 
prccor^ ^ voveo, 

It feems very ftrange to me^ that ever our 

Afanufcript^ a Book of no yiuthority at all, flwuld be 
alledg'd in confirmation of a dubious Readings fince I 
have already difcovered it to very many learned Men^ 
and even to the Reverend Mr* Martin himfelf^ that 
this Manufcripty tho much boafied of^ and fold by a 
cunning Cheat for an antient Book, is but a late Tran" 
fcript from the ?o\yg\ot of the ComplutcnCi^n Edi- 
tion *, this I frefently difcerned^ when as a Stranger 
only I viewed the Kin£s Library^ before I had any 
thoughts of fettling at Berlin, and I then declared 
the fame openly to Hendreichius «<7rp deceafed : and 
ever fince this Library has been committed to my 
Care^ I have freely owned it vpon all Occafions with" 
out referve \ and the Reverend Mr. Martin knows it 
very well^ who by my means has been informed of it. 

Take this therefore in Jhort for an Anfwer to all 
your Queftions : He that hoifeenthe Complutenfian 
printed Copy^ has at the fame time feen cur Manu- 
fcript, without excepting fo much as the Errors of the 
Printer^ which the unskilful Scribe has fo exaEily 
copy^d^ that it plainly appears fome learned Knave 
had committed the Work to an illiterate Man. 

7%e Book indeed was fold for very antient^ and 

therefore at an huge Trice \ and yet the Parchment is 

fo new., that the very Lime or Chalk made ufe of in 

the drejfmg Calve-skins^ is yet upon it j and were 

B z there 



12 A Reply to 

there no other Marks of Praud^ the Jnh is enough to 
dlfcover it^ in that ^tis whiti/h in every Part. It is 
therefore to nofur^ofe to appeal to this Copy. For my 
tart I firmly hold the Nicene and Orthodox Faith ; 
but God forbid J fhould ever go about to defend it by 
Fraud, However in this Manufcripty the Jth Ferfe is 
in the 7ext^ in the fame manner as the 6th and %th 
ure^ nor is there any thing written in the Margin, 

We have no other Greek Manvfcrifts of the New 
Teftament •, many Latin ones we have^ }?ut them not 
old \ among which there is one indeed of good efleem^ 
which Appears to me to be tranfcribed from a very an- 
tient Copy ^ in this the Sth Ferfe immediately follows 
the 6th, and the feventh Verfe is added in the Mar- 
gin by the fame hand. This is what I have to write 
in anfwer-, &c, 

1 have no leave given me, nor ami reftrained 
from making this Letter publick *, and hope it 
will give no offence to the worthy Author, 
whofe critical Genius, and honeft Regard to 
Truth in a matter of Fad, will furely merit the 
Efteem of the Learned and Impartial. I have 
therefore fet down the entire Letter according to 
the Original, that none may fufpefi: me of with- 
holding any thing that might be againft my Canfei 
and fhall now make a few Remarks upon Mr, 
Martinis difhonourable Condud in this Matter of 
the Berlin Manufcript, which he aflerted, and 
pretended to prove, had the Reputation of being 
$00 Tears old. 

I. It appears plainly by the abovefaid Letter, 
and by what he has faid in his Examination of my 
^nfwery that Mr. Martin had good Evidence of 
the little or no Reputation of this Manufcript 
for Antiquity j and that it was at leafl reafonably 
fufpeded, it not rather fully proved, to be a late 
Tranfcript, fince Prioting has been in ufe. Hov^ 

exadly 



Mr. Martin'i Examination, &c: i j 

cxaOly do his Words, about the M and Parch* 
ment, &c, anfwer to the Account in Mr. La Croz.e*s 
Letter, and confirm the Truth of his having been 
informed of the State of this Copy ? /Vnd yet he 
was not fo ingenuous as to own any thing of it; 
only from a Scrap of a Letter he tells us, we can 
affirm nothing certain of its Antiquity : But I judge 
Mr. Martin could have told us a great deal that 
had been affirmed of its Novelty, and of its be- 
ing a Fraud. And ought not an impartial Lover 
of Truth to have difcover'd this imCritical Dif- 
fertation^ or elfe not alledg'd this Manufcript at 
all in the Argument ? 

With what ingenuous Honefty could he pro- 
ceed to fay. Whether this Manufcript be 500 Years 
oldy more orlefs^ is to be dif cuffed^ &c. AS if, by 
thelnformationfent him, it was as likely to be 
of greater Antiquity, as of lefs than 500 Years, 
for any thing that he had heard ^ or as if he had 
not known, that a Judgment had been made of 
its Novelty from the Ink and Parchment, and the 
like. 

2. Mr. Martin has not produced any one Au- 
thority or Teftimony that juftifies his Affirma- 
tion ^ viz* that this Manufcript had the Re^w 
tat ion of being 500 Tears old ^ on the contrary, 
tho he fays, F. Long gives this Account on the 
Teftimony of T^oUim and Saubertvu^ yet F. Long 
(in the Place refer'd to) fays not a word of 500 
tears old \ much lefs does he ground it on the 
Teftimony oiToIUuSy for he fays not a Word of 
it neither : and I fuppofe the fame of Sauhertm^ 
whom I have not met with. 

Indeed Mr. ^^rfi;? had fathered the whole Af- 
fertion on Le Long^ viz. 'Tis faidto be in a Ma- 
vufcript at Berlin "reputed 500 Tears old ^ this Ac^ 
count F. Long^ti/e/, &c. but in his laft Trad he 
tells uSj he coritent edhimf elf mth giving the Antiqui- 



t/^ A Rep l y /(? 

ty of the Manufcript on the T*eji:lmony of Saubertus 
and Toilius, oi recited by F. Long : So that we 
muft q^it him of the firft half^ one would hope 
then that the other remaining half fhould be 
well proved from F. Lon^^ viz, reputed 500 Tears 
old'^ which is yN\\'^l'Nir, Martin faid of its Anti- 
quity, and was to prove. Bat tho Mr. Martin 
fays, I will fiand to what Icjuoted from F, Long, ^ 
And my ^4otation is faithful^ yet I think he had 
better coafefs his Unfaitbfulnefs, thar. todenyit. 
. All that F. Long lays, is. That there is a Greek 
Manufcript oi the New Teftament njery oid^ on 
Farchment^ in great Letters and without AccentSj 
rohich]o\{X\ K^d^i ins bought for lOO Rix Dollars^ and 
brought out of the Eafty and^ oi is reported^ gave it 
to the Kin£i Library at Berlin, in two Vol. and then 
only refers to the Places in Saubertus and Tollim,-\ 
Where is the Account of 500 Tears old in tl)is ? 
He calls it indeed a very antient Manufcript, but 
determines not the particular Age of it, which 
Mr. Martin affirmed, and brought him for a Wit- 
nefsof*, and not very ingenuouily intimates, that 
F. Lon(i muft bear all the blame if it be riot fo old: 
But when himfelf only, and not F. Long faid ft, 
how could he fay, I make my felf no Tarty in this 
jijfair^ I cjuoteditfromF'Lo^^t 

3. When he faw he could no longer juftify his 
Argument, how unfairly does he come off with 

ni.: . - 

1^.,^ Exaimnat. p. 102. 
'^ \ Novum Teft. Grxcum MS. pevvetuftum, membranaceum, 
^Iiteris Uncialibu?, & abfque accentuum notis exaratum, quod du- 
centis Impevialibus emptum ex Oriente attulit, & mi fama feit, 
SereniiT. Eleftoris Brandeburgici illuftri Bibliothecae confecravit 
'Johannes Rallies Profellbr Vpfalienfis^ 2 Vol. 

Jo, Saubertus in Proleg, ad vaiias leftiones S. Matth&iyi^» 6i» 
de hoc Codice loquiiur Tollius ;» Epifi. Itincrariis^ Ep, l\* 
p. 4$. Bcrolini Bibl. Brandeburg. 

P.Long, B'iblioth. S. To. i. C. 3, Sea.4, 

this 



Mr. MartinV Examination, &c. 1 5 

this pitiful Gonclufion? Whatevfr be determined 
concerning the Antiquity of the Copy^ tht Pajfage of 
St. John is found in it^ and in the Body of the Text ; 
that's enough. Is it fo ? But what is it enough for ? 
Is it enough to prove the Copy to be old, and 
before the Art of Printing, if it be but a Tran- 
fcript from the Print ? or does Mr. Martin think 
fo meanly of Mankind, that they will take the 
PalTage to have been St. Johnh origiaally, becaufe 
fomebody of late has written down the Words ? 
He might even as well have faid, the PafTage is 
now printed, and that's enough^ no matter what 
Authority they had for it. But it muft be enough^ 
tho it be nothing to the purpofe^ becaufe Mr. 
Martin could prove no more from it. From the 
whole of this matter, 1 take leave to make a 
few Inferences. 

1, That Mr. Martin fhould not think it flrange, 
nor take it ill, if fome Sufpicion be entertained 
concerning others in what they have fpoken ia 
general Terms, of the Manufcripts made ufe of 
by them, in reviling the New Teftament ^ at lealt 
fo much as to put us upon examining into the 
Grouads they went upon ^ left perhaps, thro a 
cautious Fear of oppofing the ilrong and general 
Prejudices of the Age, or from fome other Bias, 
they alfo, like Mr. Martin^ might conceal fome 
things known to them, which they did not care 
to have known. 

2. That he fhould not cenfure others too hardi/ 
and vehemently, if any have made fome fuch flip, 
much lefs if it were only a Miltake thro Inadver- 
tency. He fhould not call Robert Stephens a Cheat 
and Impofior, if he failed to put his Marks exadly 
in the right Place. I fhould be very forry if any 
fhould give Mr. Martin fuch hard Words, whom 
I will by no means cenfure as an evil Man, tho I 
can't help thinking he has impofed on the 

World, 



i6 J Keply to 

World, and dealt unfairly in this matter, viz* in 
recommending the Antiquity of the Berlin Copy, 
while he concealed what he knew of its Novelty. 
3. That it (till remains true what I had for- 
merly aflerted, That the Paflage of St. John is not 
now found in any one antient Greek Manufcript 
yet known to the learned World ^ this Berlin Ma- 
nufcript being the only one Mr. Martin pretends 
to inftance in, and the Copies of Stephens and 
others no longer in beings as he fays, or mijlaid ^ 
which are the frivolous Excufes he makes. 



CHAP. II. 

Of R. Stephens'^ Grsek Mmufcripts. 

THO Mv, Martin can find no antient Greel 
Manufcript in being which has the Text in 
difpute, yet he thinks time was when there were 
fuch Manufcripts in great plenty ^ efpecially in 
the Days of R. Stephens^ to whofe Manufcripts he 
appeals as an invincible Proof of the Genuine^ 
mfs of this Paffage"^, To make this appear, he 
undertakes, i. To fhew that Stephens had more 
than feven Copies of this Epiftle of St. John^ 
and that the Text under debate was in fome of 
them entire. And, 2. That the feven Copies, rfe- 
fer'd to by Stephens''^ Marks in his Folio Edition, 
wanted only the Words \v t^ K'^^yw, in Heaven:, 
and that there was no Miftake in placing the 
Obelus^ as has been long fufpeded. Which two 
Points I (hail confider again ; tho 1 think what I 
have faid in my toimer Anfwer^ is fufficient to 
confute what Mr. Martin has faid in reply to it. 

J Ch. xii. 



Mr. Martini Examination, 6^c. ij 

But I mult firfl take fome notice of what he 
fays as to the Number of Stephens^ Manufcripts. 

Mf. Af. thinks he has done a confiderable thing 
in determining the Number of St:evhens\ Manu- 
fcripts to be b'eventeen ^ pretending to corred 
'Dv.MlWs Error^, in that under the Numberof 
Sixteen he comprehends the Complutenfan Edition. 
Kow tholjudge it nothing to the purpofe whe- 
ther there were Iixteen ovfeventeen Manufcripts, 
fo long as there were but feven of St. Johns 
Epiftle, yet lam not convinced that this was any 
Error in Dr. Aflll ; becaufe Stephens himfelf in his 
Preface fpeaks but of fixteen, and ex'prefly fays, 
the Complutenfian was one of them. He marks the 
Manufcripts in his Margin, by the numeral Letters 
in Greeks one^ twoj three^ and fo on, fays he, unto 
fixteen'^ ad fextum declmum ufque : And diredfs us 
by the firfi to under ft. tnd the Ccmflute??Jian "^^ 
What can be more plain ? And therefore 
whatever j^f;^:^ meant by fpeaking of feventeen, 
and tho he may feem to be a better Judge in the 
Cafe than Dr.Afill^ yet I think Stephens himfelf 
a better Judge than either of them, who men- 
tions no more than /ixteen *, and wihch is more llill, 
the Work it felf (hews it, fince Mr. Martin pre- 
tends not to find any feventeenth Number once 
referM to throughout the whole-, which is a 
Demonftration that Stephens made ufe of but 
fixteen Manufcripts. I thought in one Place Dr. 
Mill had a\]ovj^d fixteen h^Mcs the Comptutenfian ; 
but I perceive on a more ftricTt Review of his 
Words, that he did not. Let us now examine 
•the two main Points about thcfe Manufcripts. 

1. Whether more than feven had St. Johns 
Epiftle ? 

2. Whether Stephens's Marks, as to thew^ were 
right? ^^^^ 

C I. Mr. 



i8 J Rb^ly to 

T. My- Martin has not proved that Stephetjs la 
all his fix teen M :nan.ripts had more than feven 
Copies of St. Johnh Epiftle^ or that Dr. Mill aiid 
Dr. Roger of Bourges^ &c. were in a Miftake in 
fo jodging: on the contrary, Hx, Martini way 
of Reafoning about it is weak and ridiculous ^ 
their's folid and juft who argue againft him. To 
ihew this we muft take a View of both. 

Mr, Martins pretended Proof of more than 
feven Manufcripts, is grounded on his own Ohfer- 
'vatlonsy which he exprefTes thus : ' The feven 

* Canonical Epiftles being ordinarily joined in 

* one Volume with the Epiftles of S^.Paul-^ it 

* follows from thence that R. Stephens had as 

* many Copies of the feven Canonical Epiftles as 
^ of the other. Islow 1 have found fourteen Ma- 

* nufcripts of St. Paul\ Epiftles marked in the 

* Margins, whence I concluded there were fo 

* many of the feven Epiftles.' Andhe adds^^ We 
' have a Right to prefume nothing is wanting to 

* a Volume, till it be made appear that fome part 

* of it is fo/ 

Bat if Mr. Martin had duly confider'd the State 
of the Manufcripts of the New Teftament, as they 
are related in F. Long''s BibliotL Sacra, and Dr- 
y!i/7/'s Troleg, he would have known that there is 
fuch a great Variety and Diverfity in the Volumes 
of Manufcripts, that there is no room for deter- 
mining what they ordinarily contain ; or for con- 
cluding from one part of the New Teftameat 
being in a Manufcript, how many other Parts are 
conneded with it. Sometimes in one Manufcript 
all the four Gofpels are , fometimes but one, or 
two, or three of them; and fomtiimes the ABs : 
and of what Mr. M^irttn calls the feccnd Vo ume, 
fometimes the AEh may be with only the ft vea 
Catholick Epiftles, and not St. P^w/'s \ fometimes 
St. Paui*Sy and none of the leven, wfiich made 

often 



Mr. MartinV Examination, &c, \g 

often a third V^olume, nay fometimes two or three 
of ^t. PauVs alone. So that th: Foundation of 
Mr. Martin s Argument is a weak and chiklifh 
Fancy, viz.* That the Manufcripts are ordinarily 
made up in complect Volumes, like our printed 
Eo.>KS5 where the whole ImprefTion being uni- 
form, one may indeed prefume nothing is want- 
ing till it be made appear : b'lt to talk lb of Ma- 
nufcripts which are oft but fmall fcatter'd Parts, 
written at the Pleafure and Choice of various and 
parcicular Perfons, is very abfurd, 

Mr. Martin himfelf can difcern this at another 
time: Wlien Dr. 5f«r/f/s Manufcripts were ob- 
jcdedtohim, he fays, and very properly, "^We 
don* t know how m.%ny Manufcripts Dr. Bentley w^y 
have of St,]ohn*s Epiftle. irJe furniifs what is 
rcafonable, and I doubt not very true in Fadf, 
that fome of thofe Manufcripts are but of one 
part, and others of other parts : the like 1 fay of 
5rfp^f wj's Ma. lufcripts, and therefore I can't but 
pity his Rafhiiefs and Confidence in daring to fay, 
'I' If then there were eleven Manufcrlpt Copies o\ St. 
FsLuVs fourteen Epifiles^ there were fo many of the 
Canonical EpiftleSy for all the one and twenty were 
bound together. This is a very abfolute and pe- 
remptory AlTertion of what Mr. Martin cannot 
prove to be true, and what the molt capable 
Judges will think to be very falfe. He is angry 
with me for ufmg often the Words perhaps^ 
and poffihly^ and the like (which yet I fliall not 
forbear in reafoning about diftant Fads or Words 
not fully known) but if he had ufed fome fuch 
foftning Word here and in many other Parts of 
his Writings, he need not have been adiamed of 
his Modefty, for his Argument would very well 
bear it. 

* Examin, cb. iii. f D'tjfntat, ch. ix. 

C 2 Mr. 



20 J KV.VLY to 

Mr. Martin's other Ohfervation from the Copy 
inark'd tc/^, is fufficiently refuted by what I fhewed 
from Dr. Mill\ particular Account of that Copy 
in m^^ former jinfwer |), which I fuppofeis accepted. 
Thefe are the Obfervations by which, if we be- 
lieve himfeif, he has vndeniahly proved that Ste- 
phens'i Manufcripts of St. JohnV Efiftle were not 
reduced to the number of feven. But if this be his 
undeniable Proof, we need not be much moved 
with the higheft Commendations he oft gives of 
his own Arguments. 

I am next toreprefent the Method which is 
ufed on the contrary fide, in order to fhew that 
Stephens's Manufcripts of St. Johns Epiftle were 
no more than fez'en-^ which Mr. Martin d\i\ikts. 
Since Stephens hath not given an Account how 
much each Manufcript contained of the New 
Teltament, (of which Dr. Mill complains) the 
Learned have thought this the only way of find- 
ing it out, ^jIz,. by obferving how far he has made 
ufe of each Manufcript in noting the various 
Readings ^ for which he had fo many occafions, 
that tho they did not offer in every Chapter, or 
in fuch a fmall Epiftle as the 2d or 3d Epiflle of 
St.Johnj (which Mr. Martin remarks) yet in a 
much larger Compafs, there could not but be 
fome various Readings in them, to be taken no- 
tice of by one that carefully collated the Manu- 
fcripts. If then Stephens^ who had made frequent 
References to the other Manufcripts in the other 
Parts of the New Teftamenr, has never once 
referred to any but the feven^ throughout the 
whole Epiftles of Si.John^ nor throughout all the 
fevea Ci?W/Vy^Epifl:lcs, (which indeed generally 
went together) is it not rationally concluded, he 
had no other Manufcripts of theyn but thefe feven 

II ^'^'^. 52. 

before 



Mr. Martin'^ Examination, &c. 21 

before him ? How ftrange were it to fappofe 
there fhould not be any fort of different Reading 
in all that Compafs! 

We find one fmgle Chapter of St. ?eter\ id 
Epifle was (according to Dr. .4/;//'s relationof^ 
it) annexed to a Manufcript of the Gofpels, 
itiark'cT/tA, and this indeed is rcf.rr'd to by 5ff- 
fhens in that Chapter. Could there then be other 
Manufcripts of all the feven Epiftles, and yet 
never be taken notice of? Mi'.M.irtin has not 
obferved to us any Mark of any other but the 
/ft/fw Manufcripts, fave that on 2 P^r. 1.4. which 
I have been fpeaking of. Let it be judged then if 
this be not the moft equal and rational Procefs : 
Tho I do not fay it was not poffible in Stephens to 
have Manufcripts, and not make ufe of them till 
became jult to i John '^,7. yet I think no Man 
will ever prefame it, if Mr. Martin do not. 

Nay, if I miftake not, Mr. Martin himfelf has 
owned this way of Reafoning to be juft : for how- 
ever he flights it in others when againlt his Caufe, 
yet himlelf has naturally gone into it before he 
was aware, in his Differtation -]', For thus he 
proves feme of Stephens's Manufcripts to have been 
not compleat ones of the whole Kew Teftament: 
The Reafon^ fays he, why I fay Stephens had fome 
Copies thus imverfeCt^ is^ that I find in the Tome of 
the Gofpels^ mention made of certain Manufcripts 
that no where occur in the Epiftles^ as are the 3d, the 
6th, and 8th ^ and fa I find fome in the Epifiles 
that are no where feen in the Gofpels, And again, 
uis for the id Folume^ (i. e. the latter Part of the 
New Teftament, or the Epiftolary Code) / have 
obferved eleven Manufcripr Copies y whereof muQ had 
alfothefirfi-p^ohmey but the two others^ viz. /e and 
l^-i muft have belonged to a defMiVr^ Book. Is not 



ProUg, N^ 1174, 1 1 75, 1175. f Chap. I'x. 

this 



22 J Reply to 

tfeis the very Method which in his Examination 
he condemns? 

If becaufe the Manufcripts mention'd in the 
Gofpels are not mention'd in the Epiftles, we 
may, nay mv^ conclude, that thofe Maau- 
faipts did not contain the Epiftles^ (thoordiiia^ 
rily they went together, for he fays, nine of them 
bad both,) then furely, where the Manufcripts 
Eiention'd in St. Paidh Epiftles never occur in 
all the feven CatholicR Epiftles, we may conclude 
they belonged to defeEiive Booh^ which had not 
thofe feven Epiftles in them : for it was common 
to have St. Faults Epiftles feparate from the o- 
thers. So that upon the whole, I think hi- 
therto we have much ftronger Proof of Stephens^s 
having but feven Manufcripts of St. John^s E- 
piftles, than Mr. A^^r tin's pretended undeniable 
Froofs of his having more. 

But he infifts on further Proof from the Tefti- 
SDony af Be^ia, who in his firft Note on this 
ferfe fays, Erafmus read it in the Manufcrip of 
England : The Compluteniian Editors read it alfo ; 
and we read it in fome Aianufcripts of our Friend 
R. Stephens i tho thefe do not agree in all the Wordsy 
&c. And afterwards, in another Note upon the 
Words, in Heaven^ he fays, T'loefe Words were 
wanting in feven A^anufcripts : Whence Mr. A4artin 
infers, that Stephens had more than feven Manu- 
fcripts of this Epiftle^ feven wherein thofe two 
Words were not ^ and fome others in which the Verfe 
was entire as inserted in the Text ^ and that Bez.^ 
makes a manifeft DiftinSlion between the Manu- 
fcripts of the one and of the other, or between 
Iht fome Manufcripts and the feven. 

To this I anfwer, that the Words of Bezado 
not at all imply that the feven Manufcripts in 
the fecond Note^were not among the f;f>w«w//^, or 

the 



Mr. Martin'j Examination, &c. «j 

the fome meation'd in the firft ; for he does not 
fay, infeptem alits Codicibm^ in feven other Manu- 
fcripts : and 'tis abfurd to imagine when he fays ia 
one Note^ this is wanting in two \ and in the next 
]Sote, this is wanting in three or in ^our Manu- 
fcripts *, that therefore all thefe arc dificrent Ma- 
nufcripts : How many hundred Manufcripts muft 
we liave at this rate? Ko, the fame Manufcripts 
are again oft produced under feveral Heads \ and 
I doubt not but it was fo here, and that the fe- 
ven which wanted the Words, in Heaven^ were of 
the fome which he thought had the rerfe \ be- 
caufe according to Stephens^ Marls^ they would 
appear to have it all but thefe Words. 

'Tis evident that Bez,A could not in his way 
of reckoning, but account thefe /fi'f?? Manufcripts 
to be among thofe that had the Verfe in grofs, 
tho they wanted thcfe Words, (uniefs he knew 
alfo they wanted more than the Words, in 
Heaven, which Mr. Murtin will not yield) becaufc 
he reckons thcComplutenfian and the ^r/>z/fc Copies 
among them, which yet had not the entire Words 
as inferted in Stephens'^ Text \ and he owns that 
they difagreed in feveral Particulars ^ and indeed 
in one there is a Difference, judged to be of more 
Importance than the Omilfion of the Words, in 
Heaven^ amounts to : fo that here was no more 
reafon for diftinguifhing the [even Manufcripts 
from thofe which had the Verfe in grofs, than for 
diftinguilhing the others which had their different 
Readings too, but yet are faid by hira to have the 
Verfe. Thefe then were intended in Bez.as non* 
millis^ cr/I'Wtf Minufcripts, if he fpake rationally 
and confiftentiy •, but if he talked confufedly ani 
obfcurelv (which 1 mud own 1 fufped he did) 
then 'tis in vain to guefs at his Meaning, or to 
araue from it. 

That 



24 ^ R E P L Y ^^ 

That ^f;?:^ writes confufedly and obfcurely, as 
a Man uncertain, and that had not fully inquired 
into the Manufcripts, as ought to be done-in to cri- 
tical and important a Cafe, (unlefs he had a mind 
to leave it in the dark) feems to me very plain ; 
elfe why did be in fo nice a Matter, and fo much 
contefted, only fay in general, this rerfe^ tho 
wanting infuch and fuch^ &c. is yet in fame (7/Ste- 
phens'j Manufcripts ? Why did he tiot tell the 
World in which Manufcripts it was, at leaft in 
how many of them •, as in the next Note, and in 
the foregoing Notes, he did? Sometimes he men- 
tionstwo^ fometimes f^re^, and /even ^ &c. Why 
were we in this extraordinary Subjeft to be pur 
off with a loofe and carelefs indefinite [ome ? I 
can't but fufpeft, that having Stephens^ Copy be- 
fore him, where he had fet down feven in the 
Margin, Bez.a could eafily fay feven too in his 
Notes vbut in this Place where there was no 
fuch Guide, he only ventures to fay 'tis in fome, 
lince it was in the Text of Stephens. 

That Be2ia took little care to make any fearch 
into the Manufcripts himfelf, I had noted from 
Dr. Miii 7 fo that Mr Martin need not ask. Where 
did I find this ? And whereas I had faid Bex.a was 
furni filed- with Henry Stephens^ (Son of Robert} 
Colledion of the various Readings of more Copies 
(Dr. Mill fays ten) added to thofe of his Father ; 
by which means, 1 judge, he was eafed of his 
own laborious Search : Mr. Martin breaks out 
into thefe angry and cenforious Words, * ^Tis a 
difagreeahle thing to have to do with Men who haz,ard 
every things and fear not what they fay. But where- 
in have 1 been fo regardlefs of Truth as this Cen- 
fure reprefents me? Beza, fays he, received not 
this valuable Copy from H. Stephens, till after the 



* Chap. xii. at the End. 

Death 



Mr. MartiiaV Examination, drc. 25 

Death of Robert his Father^ who Uv^d three Tears 
after himfelf hAd printed the New Teftament and Art- 
notations of Bczdy publiHied Anno 1555. 

But as I never faid Bez.a leceived this Copy 
from H* Stephens^ foldoabc Mv. Martin hzs fpo- 
ken at all hazaid*, in fiying polltively that Beza 
never received this Copy of H. Stephens till after 
the Death of Rch^rt his Father. I demand his 
Evidence for this : for Dr. A'filif who was a con- 
liderateaud wary Man, tells us, that it w^s Roh. 
Stephens who gave Beaa this ColledioQ of his 
Sons (and I think I fhall not hazard any thing 
if I fay, that he gave it in his Life-time.) And 
till Mr. Martin brings his Vouchers for what he 
fo earneftly and poUtively aflerts, I fhall take leave 
to credit Dr. Mill rather than him*, and the 
more, becaufe I think Bez.ci himfelf fays, that he 
had this Copy of various Readings (which I take 
to be the fame) in R. Stephens's time, even before 
the Edition in X556. In the Preface to which, 
fpeaking of what helps he had in this Work, he 
fays, Moreover I had a Copy from my Friend Ste- 
phens'/ Library^ which had been carefully compared 
with about twenty five Manufcripts, and almoft all 
the printed Editions : which one thing ha^ eafed me of 
a great deal of trouble^ Jince I could here fometimes 
fee the Conje^ures of Interpreters confirmed by fome 
Manufcripts •^. So that iuftead of his faying, / 
fear'd not^ it may perhaps be thought^ that Mr. 
Martin here card not what he faid. 



* Ad hoDc omni.i acceflit Exemplar ex .>/fp/?<?,n/ noftri Biblitfs 
tVieca, cum \iginti quinque p^us minus MSS. Codicibu% &. om- 
nibus pene iaiprcflis, dr;j,ent'.fli.ne coll.itiim. Qti*! rt'> una^ 
prae ceie.'is, 'iia;»nopere mi 'ubl-v.^vit, quu.-n inrerJunuvitkrem 
qua: ^/ioqui fola lnterpre:um conjcduia n.tebantur ali^jus Co" 
Hicis auiuviiate confiunata. 



26 J K v. PLY to 

In (hort, if Bez.as nonnullis^ or fome Mana- 
fcripts, were only the fame with his feven which 
wanted the Words, in Heaven^ then he mentions 
no more than feven'j and fo it proves not Mr. 
i^^rnVs Point, njiz' that Srf/j/?e»j had more than 
feven Manufcripts of St. J^f/i^w's EpiUles : but if 
he meant fome others befides, tbo not excluding 
the feven, then be Ihould have faid, that the f^erfe 
was in all Stephen s\ Manufcripts, fmce it was both 
in the feven, (as is fuppofed by him) and in the 
others alfo^ unlefs Mr, Martin will fay, as he 
feems to do, that of i\\o^q others^ fome had, and 
fome wanted the whole Ferfe. Of which 1 (hall 
make fome ufe hereafter, in relation to Stephens^s 
Care and Accuracy in placing and correding his 
Marks of Reference :, upon which alone Mr. Mar- 
tin depends for making, gc^d his Authoiity for 
this Verfe, from thofe feven Manufcripts ^ to the 
Conlideration of which 1 now pafs. And add. 

Secondly^ That Mr, Martin has not clear'd Ste' 
fhens from a Miftake in his Marks, referring to 
the feven Copies,which alone he had, of St. John's 
Epiftle. 

Whatever becomes of the reft of Stephens^ 
Manufcripts, yet, if thofe /^f^??, which aie no- 
ted in his Margin, did want only the Words 
h T&I »jct;/a, in Heaven^ it will follow, 1 grant, 
that all me reil of the f^erfe was in thofe very 
Copies. But tho Stcphens'% Marks are placed fo 
as to fignify that only thofe two Words are want- 
ing, yet it will not be granted that this is decifive 
for the Authority of this Text^ or for proving that 
it was m thofe Manufcripts^ if there be good 
Reafon to fufped that one of Stephens's Marks was 
placed wrong*, and that inftead of being fet 
after the V\'ords, in Heaven^ it (hould have been 
fet after the Words, in Earth, in the next Verfe. 

Many 



Mr. MartinV Examination, &c. 2.7 

Many learned Men, who could be glad to fe- 
cure :hc Authority of this Text, have greatly 
doubted, that there is a Miftake in Stephens in this 
matter. Near 1 50 Years pad, the Divines of 
the Univerfity of Louv^ln made an exceptioa 
upon this Article . Mr. Martin can't think but. 
they had fome weighty Reafon for making this 
Scruple j prooably itwasbecaufe they had never, 
feen or heard of any fuch Copy which wanted, 
thofe two Words, in Heuven^ and no more *, and 
then it would fecm ftraiige that Stephens had fa 
many of them as /even: this ftagger'd thofe Di- 
vines almoft at the beginning, and the ftumbliag 
Block remains unremov'd to this Day. For, 

That which Ilrengthens the 0-bjedtion againlt 
Stephens^ Mark, is, that upon inquiry in the 
French King's Library, where Stephens had fome 
of his Manufcripts, there is no fuch ManufcripE 
found therc,^ nor elfewhere that 1 ever heard of, 
which wanted thofe Words, and no more : and 
this is what I ask, to have one Manufcript in 
proof of it \ and it is not ridiculop^^ hut reafonable^ 
for Mr. Martin grants the way to determine this 
Point of the Obelus^ would be by the Manufcripts 
themfelves : but he fays, this is impracticable, be- 
caufc, as he pretends, the Manufcripts are no longer 
in heing^. But I know not what Warrant he or 
any have for faying fo,fave that they can find none 
which anfwers to their Expedatioain this Affair. 
Manufcripts, 1 mean antient ones, have been of 
greater efteem and value, and fo more worthy of 
careful Prefervation,^ from Stephens's time than 
they were before ^ and as they are of no Value 
but to him that prefer ves ;hem, fo it is not 
likely very many of them (hould be deftroy'd, 



* Examinat* cb. xiii. 

D 2 that 



28 A Reply to 

that had once been taken notice of, and highly 
prized : and 'tis ftran^e if not fo much as one 
out of /even (hould efcape, to tell us there h^d 
been fuch a Copy. 

What way then will Mr. /^4m« take to aflure 
us that Stephens has been exaft and juft, and that 
thofe ftrong Sufpicions are all groundlefs ? Tru- 
ly only this, that Stephens has not correded him- 
felf as he ought, and as he thinks he would, if he 
had fet his Marks wrong : he tells us, as he was 
exaEt and judkiopu^ he ought to have given an 
Advertifement of fo confiderable a Fault as this, 
by way of Emendation, which he has not done j 
and that Bez.a% Annotations were printed by 
Stephens himfelf ; that it was a nice and curiom 
IVlatter, to fee in what manner Bez.a had fpoken 
of this Pajfage concerning the Trinity in the God- 
head, which had raifed great Contefis : That all 
this deferved that he fl)ould fee what vfe Beza had 
made of his Manvfcnfts^ on a Text of this impor- 
tance : And then infers, IVho can doubt after this, 
that if Beza had advanced a Faljhood in aflerting 
that he read the Verfe in Stephens^ Manufcripts, 
that learned Printer would not have difcerned it^ or 
that he wculd have printed it f concluding, that if 
Stephens had not fuch Manufcripts in which the 
,Xext was foui'.d, he was an Impofior, an infamom 
Fellow-i and deferv^d the utmoft Contempt. 

But what is there in all this more than the 
bare telling us what Stephens ought to have done? 
And fo he oi^ght in all the other Parts of his 
Work ^ but yet he has not by his Care and Faith- 
fulnefs.j either pre ^'^en ted or corrt ded all confi- 
derable Faults ; and therefore this alone is no 
fufficient Satisfadion that there is no Fault in 
the Matter before us, where we have fuch grounds 
to fufped it, 

I 



Mr. Martini Examination, &c. 29 

I am far from detrading from the Praife and 
Efteem of ^. Stephens as a Gritick, and a curious 
Printer ^ nor do I think him at fo little a diftance 
from the Charadler of an iffamota Fellow^ worthy 
cf vtmoft Contewpt^ that nothing Hands between 
him and it, but only the (lender Suppofition of 
his bavins; fee his Mirks exadly right here. 
'Tis Mr. Martin who ukshim thus cruelly^ for- 
getting how eafily Men run into little Arts of 
Difguife and Concealment about Manufcripts. 

Butftill I cannot rely on Stephens^ Care and 
Faithfulnefs, with fuch a Confidence as Mr. Mar- 
tin requires, nor yet clear him from all Faults, 
either in other Texts, or in this it felf. How 
£ez.a and he manag'd it, 1 know not, nor what 
their Intention was •, but I fee plainly they, with 
Mr. MArtin^ have left the Bufinefs in uncertainty 
andinconfillency, as I will fhew anon. 

T\\2iX. Stephens made many Ornidions, is fo'ap- 
parent, that Dr. Mill found above 700 of them 
in one Article, viz» in comparing the Complw 
tenfian Edition, in which he found fo many diffe- 
rent Readings not taken notice of by him ^. And 
fo far was he from unerring Exadnefs, that he 
fometimes put into the Text what he had no 
fufficient Authority for. I will give orv? Inftance, 
which I obferved without much fearch, in Rev. i . 
II. where the Words, lam Alpha and OmegUy the 
firft- and the Ufl^ are put into Stephens^ Text, and 
his Margin notes 'em to be waating only in 
two Manufcripts a and /tj whereas iJ^s:^ on the 
Place tells us, thtfe Words are not in the Complu- 
teniian Edition^ nor in any other of Srephens'i Ma' 
nufcripts f. Here then let me ask Mr. Martin the 
fame Queftions which he asks in relation to the 



* Proleg, N°1472. \ Nequc extanr in Cot7iplut, Edit, 

ncque ia alio quodam vctufto Codice ex noftiis, 

rtext 



JO J Rep LY to 

Text of St. Johfiy Whence came it there ? Or 
where did Stephens w^^^ with it to give it that FlacCy 
if it was in a one of his Manufiripts^ ^ And why 
did be mark, ojily two Copies as wanting the 
Words? Why did he not fay, ?,; ^^^oj, or in ^//, 
as Mr. Martin pretends he would, if he faro them 
not in any Manufcripts ? And w hy did he not give 
an Advertifement of this Fault, &c ? 

Will M»". Martin fay he vj2l$ an infamom Fallow 
for infer ting thefe W'ords without Manufcripts ? 
I hope he will not treat him in this cruel manner . 
Now apply but all this to his infertion cf the 
PaiTage of Sr.John^ and his mifplacing ihcALirks^ 
and all Mr. Martini long Flourifhes upon the 
Exadnefs and Faithfulnefs of that learned Prin- 
ter, will do him little fervice. What tho he 
faid in his Preface^ that he put nothing into the 
Text, nuHam ornnino literam^ not a Letter^ but upon 
the Authority of the mofi and befi Manufcripts .? 
We fee 'twas not fo in fad ; and therefore 'tis 
but empty Harangue to run out into an Encomium 
of Stephens^ Care and Concern, and his Duty in 
the Cafe, when we are enquiring what he has, 
not what he (houid have done. hlx.Marttn fays, 
He had not the f^illany to forge a Text which had not 
been in his own Manvfcripts y nor do 1 fay any 
thing of his FUlany : but he has put in fo me Text 
which Be^a (Mr. A4artins own Evidence) fays 
was not in his own Manufcripts *, and why ftiould 
he not be as likely to do it in St. Johnh Epiftle, 
where he might be under more fear of offending 
others, and where he had the Complutcnfian Edi- 
tion to countenance the Fajfage^ as in St, Johns 
Revelation, where he had not that Precedent? 

It may perhaps be faid, that Bez.a however 
hascorreded this Fault of Stephens's *, true, he 

* Diffsrtat, ch. x. 

did 



M*. Martini Examination, &c, ^i 

did fay what is contrary to Stepheta^s Account, 
but does not take notice of Stephe^/s's fault in the 
Matter. And I conceive alfo that I fee the like 
in ^f^^'s Notes on the Paflage in St.Johri's E- 
piftle, hew that tho he finds not fault with his 
Friend 5ff/?^f??/s Marks, yet he has faid fometbing 
which is inconfiftent with him, and that fhews 
there was fomething wrong in his A^/^rks ^ for he 
only fays this Verfe was read >>/ nomuliis^ m fame 
0/ 5ffp^f«j's Manufcripts, as well as in the Com- 
plutenfari : by which it appears, that it was not in 
a/l of them (for he would not have concealed 
that) and fo Mr. Martin^ I think, takes it ^ for 
he fays, We cannot determine in hove many of them 
the Verfe ir^/, only ^twa4 in fome of them* And 
in his Examination^ &:c. he fays, That at leafi there 
were two wherein it wa4 per fed ^ for the Exprelfton in 
fome, which BeZa ufes^ mvfi be twderfiood of two 
at leafl , fo that there were at leafl nine^'w which the 
■V^ikw^ts found^ hefides the Com plutenlian Copy. "^ 
JSow, if Bcz.a fpake exadly upon his own 
accurate Search, as Mr. Martin thinks, and not 
at adventures, this plainly contradicts Stephens^ 
who reprefents the Verfe to be in all his Manu- 
fcripts, but without the Words, in Heaven^ in 
[even of them •, for he does not mark one in 
the Margin as wanting the whole. And fo the 
Louvain Divines underllood it, that all Stephens's 
Copies had the Verfe.'I* And if Mr. Martin m^ 
have it, that he had fourteen Manufcripts, 
and we fhould fuppofe, by his Reafouing from 
Bez.a^ that nine had the Verfe, then I ask. What 
had Stephens done with the reft ? Where is there 
any Mirk or N^te Ihewing us thofe other /owr, 
which wanted the whole Verfe? Ought not that 
to have been marked, if he dealt fo carefully and 



J Ch. xii. \ Inier omnes Ste^hani ne unus eft qui diHidear. 

honeft- 



j2 ^ Reply ^^ 

honeftiy in a Matter fo cuyiom and important^ and 
that had raifed great Contefts ? But wbere is this 
advertifed^ or correded by him? And yet Bcz.a 
tacitly, perhaps unawares, difcovers it ; and ia 
his Notes on the 8th Verfe, feems not to judge 
the Authority certain and undeniable for our jth 
Ferfe^ by obferving that the Words, on Earthy 
tho not in all Copies, fhould yet be kept, nifi^ fays 
he, expungatur proxime ant ece dens verfits. But I 
think if all the Manufcripts confirmed fo ftrong- 
ly that Verfe, he need not have made fuch an 
exception, viz. -unUfs the preceding Verfe he put 
out. 

It feems plain then that Stephens has not done 
right to the Manufcripts, in not marking what 
wanted the Verfe ^ and Bez.a^ if he faw it, and 
had a mind to be open in fuch an important Point, 
could have fet the Matter in a clear light by 
mentioning what, or how many Manufcripts had 
it, and not have left us in the dark ftill, by an 
uncertain nonnullis-^ or fome of them. 

If Mr. Martin to avoid the Argument ihall re- 
treat, and fay, that all 5^^;>k??i's Manufcripts had 
the Verfe in grofs, he mult remember, that 'tis 
what Bez.a would not pretend to fay \ and what 
alfa carries in it very abfurd Suppofitions, viz,. 
I. That he fhould have thirteen or fourteen Manu- 
fcripts all agreeing in having the Verfe. Cajetan 
fpeaks of but feme \ Erafmm could find none 5 
Cayyo^hdm none, and F. Simon none : But Stephens 
co'ild find none other, it feems I Whatnot one 
that wanted it? V^hat ftrangeLuck had he ? How 
different from all other Enquirers after the anf ient 
Manufcripts? 2. And what is further ftrange, is, 
that all thefe arelofl: What, fourteen, or ele- 
ven, or nine Manufcripts, be which it wili, all 
in a CUiIter, and not one to be found fince ! Did 

Stephen's^ 



Mr. Martin'i Examination, a-c. ^ } 

Stephens^ think we, burn them when he had done? 
or had no body any value for fuch a Manu- 
fcript to fpare and to preferve it, as they did 
fo many others? How much more eafy is it co 
think Stephens might make a filent flip, and drop 
his femicircle too ihort, than to admit fo many 
Abfurdities all at once ? 

And as for his Edition with Bez^as Annota- 
tions, it was done haftily : the Author was weary, 
and the Printer in hade \ and flnce, in his Advr'- 
tifement at the end, he befpeaks Favour a:.d 
Pardon of his OmilTions or Neglects upon that 
Account, I think we ought to accept his Excufe, 
H^c tant£ fcflinationi condona* 

Nor is it unworthy of our Conflderation,' 
t\\zt Bez.aS Annotations were printed by Stephens 
at Geneva^ at a Time and Place flaming with 
bitter Zeal and Prejudice againft all Antitrimta^ 
rians : but three Years before Servetus had beea 
cruelly burnt there at the Stake, partly at the 
inftigation of Calvin\ and Bez^a was fo full of it, 
that in thefe very Annotations, he could not 
forbear juftifying the fad ^ having mentioned 
Servetus''s (landing in his Opinions even to Death, 
on 2 Pet, 1.4. he adds an ironical Scoff not much 
lefs cruel than his Death it felf "^j yet good Matfj 
fome think he had great wrong done him. Is it any 
great Wonder then if they durlt not, or would 
not call out fuch a Text, that was thought a 
principal Support of the Orthodox Faith, and 
had been in their Latin Bibles, and in fome Im- 
preffions of the Greek ? No doubt it was more 
fife to fay little, and to letJ it pafs with a filent 
OmifTion *, and perhaps we may fay (as Mr. Alar* 
tin fays of him, in relation to his inferting the 
Words \v tJ 2oavo, in Hxavtn^ tho againft the 
Authority ot all, at leaft of moftof his Manu- 

* Sunt tamen qui maguam bono viro injuriam putanc 
fa^am. 

E fcripts) 



34 J Reply to 

fcripts) difcerning this could he no other than 4n 
Omiffio^j^ he gave them a flace in his Text* 

Upon the whole of thisSubjeQ: of the M.inu- 
fcripts, I cannot but make this Refle(!lion \ What 
a (trange flippery Text do fome make this to 
be ? who fuppofe that at firft it was left out ge- 
nerally in the molt early Tranfcripts of St. >Ws 
Epillle, fwhich they can't well deny from its 
being wanting in the antient l^erfions^ and from 
the Silence of the primitive Writers \) that after- 
wards it was found in Africa, or fbmewhere elfe, 
and was brought back again into the Copies as a 
choice Treafure ^ but now when we come to 
look for it, it is gone again, and none knows 
how long : So that -difirft and lafl 'tis wanting, 
as if no Care nor Caution were fufficient to hold 
it fait in the Bible. 

When Mr. Martin can give us the like Inltance 
of any other Verfe in the New Teftament thus 
managed, we fliali be lefs afhamed to give Credit 
to this. 

As for the reft of the Greek Manufcrlpts which 
others, beHdes Stephe^s^ are prefumed to have 
feen, I fee nothing more that need be faid of 
them, but refer my Reader to what I have ofiered 
in ray former Anfwer* 

Ameloth Evidence, that he found it in the mofl 
antient Manufcripts in the Vatican Library^ has 
been fully overthrown in my Anfwcr^ p. 28. 
The Complutenfian Editors had no Manufcript for 
the Text where it was prefumed : Erafmus put it 
into his 3d Edition againit his Judgnient, for fear 
of reproach : Cajetan fays only, 'tis fomd but in 
Jome j (juft fo F. Simon once faid, when he knew 
none :) And who at that time could have pre- 
fum'd lefs ? Laur. Valla is (ilent, and fays nothings 
which Silence Mr. Martin takes for good Authori- 
ty, that it was in al] his [even Manufcripts ; and 
yet he has not proved he had fo many as three^ 

of 



Mr. Martini Examination, &c, j 5 

of St. 7<7Ws Epiftle ^ for he only fnews he had 
fcven of tht Gofpels • which might be, and yec 
not one of them of that Epiftle. Kor is it any 
wonder that p^alla fhould hold his peace, if he 
found this Ferfe wanting in the Greek ^ when 
M\\ Martin tells us, that he durlt not give his 
Book the true Title of the Latin Verfion compared 
with the Greek, fince it would have ft .ir tied his 
Readers^ and might have hrovght him into trouble^ by 
reafcn of the extreme j4ffeEiion which was jhewn to* 
wards the\ja.l\\\ Verfton '-^ and that j^w^e made him 
guilty of a kind of Sacrilege, for having attempted 
to alter the Latin Verfion ^. What then had be- 
come of Valla^ if he had thrown out this Text? 
And yet his Silence mult be a convincing Proof 
that he found it ! Truly Mr. Alartin has quite 
fpoiled his Evidence by talking too muchabouthim. 
So that I think 1 might juftly fay, there is no 
Evidence of one antient Greek Manufcript yet 
known to the World, which warrants f^/iTlrArri 
which yet is very different from faying abfolutely, 
that there is not [o much a^ one which ha4 it^ which 
Mr. Martinw^]\x^\'j affirms of me, and adds, that 
I repeat it an hundred times j. I may urge him in- 
deed with the OmifTion of it in all^ as what I think 
probable, but 1 did not alTert that 'tisnotinany 
Manufcript in the World. 



CHAP. ni. 

Of St. JeromV Preface and Bible. 

FOrafmuch as St. Jerom reformed the Latin 
Verfion by the beft Greek Manufcripts in his 
li'jie, 'tis reafonable to conclade that hi^s New 
Teftament fhould be very agreeable to the origi- 
E 2 nal 

* Exam, ch, x. \ Exam, ch. x. at the beginning* 



36 ^ Reply f(? 

m\Gree^, His Teftimony therefore who fearchM 
into the primitive Manufcripts, mull needs be of 
grcateft Weight to determine the Genuineriefs of 
this Pairage of St. John : But how Ihall we know 
what St»j£ro?n thoog^ht of this Matter? It muft 
be either trom hi^ VVritwgSj by fhewing that he 
quoted this T'exf^ or from the moll antient Co- 
pie-, of hisi?/^/f it felf : but neither of thefegive 
any Coontenance to the Text. 

There i^ no Pretence for it from any of Jnom's 
undoubted Writings, where he had very great Oc- 
cafion f )r fuch a Text : All that is pretended is 
from an uncertain Preface to the feven Epiftles, 
which has been in fome Latin Bibles a ad not in 
others :i and in the former, fometimes it was at- 
tributed to Jerom^ and fometimes without any 
Author nam.ed. The Learned in our Age, are 
pretty generally agreed that this was not Jerom'Sy 
(even as many other Prefaces have been attribu- 
ted to him in the Mancfcripts which apparently 
belong not to him, as F.Sifnofj has obferved^.^ 
DuPln^ ManUnm^ Dv. M'dl^ &c, have given it 
up. But Mr. Martin^ who being fecure in nothing, 
lays hold of every thing, maintains it to be 
genuine \ and has the Vanity to fay, he has proved 
the F^iBy and maintained it againfi the firongefl 
Ohjctvions that were ever made to it 'f. And yet I 
think he has not faid one Word in Proof of it, 
but that it has bore St.y^rdJwa'slSIame^ and palled 
under that Title a long time ^ when yet himfelf 
can tell us, when 'tis in favour of his own Caufe 1], 
that a thoufafid Examples may be given of Titles pre- 
fx'^d to the Works of the Antients afterwards by o- 
thers, xvl. 9 finding a Treatife without a Title^ judged 
It convenient to make one , fo it might be here. 

Nor has Mr. Martin maintained it againfl all 
Objedions-, he has faid fomething indeed to (hew 

'^ CriT, HijKof I'erf. di.ix, \ Exi'.rnm, <:h. i, \\DijJertat, 
ch. xii. 

that 



il/r. Martini Examination, &c, 57 

tb.irpojf///;/y it might be St. Jeroms notwichfland- 
ing fome of the Objections*, viz. notwithltand- 
ing it be not in his own Catalogue of Prefaces \ not- 
vvithftanding it be often without his Name^ 
notwithftanding the Ufe of the Word Canonical 
Epiftles, inflead of C^r/jeZ/V^-, and notwithitand- 
ing ^f^^took no notice of this Vrcface^ nor yet 
of the Text which it fpeaks of, the he commented 
on St. John\ Epiille?. But what does all this a- 
mountto ? It does not Ihew it to be fo much as 
probable and likely^ only that 'tis polTible, while 
'tis on many Accounts very improbable, and 
more than pofTible to be falfe. 

But he has not anfwered the Argun'e.its I in- 
filled on, which only are what I need defend ^ 
and yet he is fo trifling and vain as to fay, that if 
I defend not the Arguments on my fide of the Oueflinn^ 
J fairly own my J elf defeated. Mr. Martin may be 
one of thofe Writers, if he will, who are fure 
to defend every thing faid by any one on his fide 
of theQ^ieftion^ but I beg leave to defend what 
I my felt judge to be valid and convincing. I had 
faid, that St. 7fr<jw, in this Preface, appears to 
infinuate that all the Greek Copies had this Text^ 
which, from the total Silence of the Greek Fa- 
thers as to this Text, mull be falfe : Mr. Martin 
denies any fuch Infinuation to be in the Complaint 
of vn faithful Tranfators who had departed from the 
Truth. Bur why then fhould he complain only of 
thQ7ra?jflatorsj as the Ca ufe of all this Mifchief ? 
If there were the fime Corruption in tb^ Greek 
Copiesy then the Tranilnors might have been very 
faithful iliil, and not the Authors of this Cor- 
ruption, as he mikcs them to be; and thereby 
he clearly ir,nri.iates, th u he knew not of any 
Greek Copies, hut what had thofe Words-omitted 
by theTranflat-rrs. 

I had alfo argued, that if Si, Jercm h^d^ not 
only look'd on this Text as a principal Si^fport of 



jg ^ Rep L Y ^^ 

the Chriflian Falth^ by which the one Suh^ance of 
Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit^ ii confirmed^ but aifo 
on himftlf as the Reftorcr and Preferver of it, when 
it had been loft among the L^ri« Vcrfions , it were 
a molt ftrange thing that he fiiould never mention 
this Text in all his genuine Writings, which he 
had fo many Occafions for, and which wanted to 
be inculcated and revived, becaufe left oat in the 
Latin Tranflations. Surely he would foon have 
loudly alarm'd the World with this Danger, 
or this Treachery, which he had efpied. But 
not one Word is there of fach a Text in all his 
voluminous Works. 

In anfwer to this Mr. Martin fays, It does not 
follow that^ becaufe an antient Writer hcu not cjuoted 
this Text in a Difcourfe wherein it wa4 natural to 
^uote itj and which fince ha6 been qtsoted by others^ 
the writer did not look v^on it as really St* John'j : 
and gives an Inftance in FigiUm to this pur- 
pofe, who among his many proper Occafions for 
this Text, does but fometimes mention it. But 
he fhould have read with more Attention, and 
then he had found that I argued not barely from 
St. Jeronis Silence, tho that were a ftrong Pre- 
fumption, but from hisSeafe of the Importance 
of this T'ext^ and his being the Rejhrer of it, 
when it was in danger of being loft, and had been 
left out ot the Latin Verfions by unfaithful Tranf- 
lators, as the Pnface pretends : Would fuch a 
Man as St. Jerom have always forgotten to pro- 
duce and to revive this Text ? This w^as a pe- 
culiar Cafe, to which no other Infi;ance comes up. 

And tho Jerom have no particular Treatife 
again ft the Jrians^ yet frequently he falls upon 
them in his Epiftles and Commentaries : Methinks 
he that fo ofc produces the Words, J and the Fa- 
ther are one \ and, Baptize all Nations in the Name 
of the Father^ Son, and Holy Spirit , to prove the 
Trinity j and who could find that Myftery fo 

oftea 



Mr. Martin'i Examination, &c. 59 

often in Ez.ehel^ Prophecy, would as well have 
produced this Text for it, if he had as much 
known of it as of the others*, finceitmuft needs 
have been more upon his Thoughts than others, 
if he had accounted it the chii^f Support of that 
Do(^rine,and had been fo off.nded with others for 
omitting it. ! think this is very tair Reafoning, 
and fhews that the Preface is no ways agreeable to 
St. Jerom^ efpeciilly when there is no Proof 
cff^r'd that it was his, but only that it has been 
thout^htfo; and I am willing others fhould judge 
which of thefe is the ftrongeft and molt rational 
Frcfumption. 

I have yet more to add to confirm the Argu- 
ment from St. Jerom\ Silence*, and that is, that 
St. Auftin had not this Text'^ which will go far to 
prove that it was not in Si.Jerotns Bible, or 
Verfion of the New Teftament^ and then 'tis cer- 
tain the Preface coxAd. noth^ St, J cram's. 

Sl.Augufiin has given us a great part of the 
Scripture in his numerous Writings *, he has writ- 
ten a great deal exprefly of the Trinity^ and a- 
gainft: the Arians^ and had the greatefl: Occafion 
of any Man for this Text^ in order to prove the 
Unity of the three Perfons (as I have fliewn in 
my Anfwer 10 Mr, Martin*) He fays liis Adver- 
fary could not find an Inftance in the Scriptures, 
where it was ever faid of different Subftances, 
They are one. Himfelf fhews 'tis faid fo of fuch 
as were di one Subltance, asjohft 10. 30. and of 
Panlcind Apollos^ I Or. 3. 8. Now how appoflte 
had our Text been for this Illuftration, had he 
known of it? Nay raore, fuppoling it might be 
alledged from the next V^erfe, that the iVater^ 
Bloody and Spirit, are faid to be cne^ which are 
different Subllances, he flees to the common 
myftical Senfe of thefe Words, as lignifying Fa- 
ther, Son, and Spirit, which he thought made 
for him, as being of one Subflance 5 of whcm^ 

fays 



40 J Ke'ply to 

fays he, it might mofi truly he faid^ There are three 
that hear witnefs^ and thefe three are one ^ hy the 
Spirit meaning the Father ', hy the Bloody the Son \ 
hy the Water^ the Holy '^ Spirit. To what pur- 
pofe (hould he make ufe of this forced uncer- 
tain Interpretation of the Words, (which he a 
little after allows to be expounded by others, if 
they think fit, after another manner ^^ if he had the 
exprefs Words of our Text before him ? Why 
does he fay, ^otuit dicl^ it might he [aid of the Fa- 
ther^ Son, and Spirit^ thefe three are one, if aduaily 
it had been faid fo diredly in this very Place? 
Would any Man in his Senfes argue thus ? 'Tis 
clear as the Day, he knew not this Text which 
does fay it, when he only brings the next Verfe 
which tnight fay it. 

indeed this is fo very clear, that Mr. Du Pin -[ 
fays peremptorily St. Anguftm knew nothing of this 
Taffage^ elfe he had not failed to quote it. Bez.a 
himfelf grants, in his Notes on the Verfe^ that 
Austin did not read it in the Text. None, 1 be- 
lieve, but Mt'. Martin wiil pretend the contrary 9 
and he himfelf faints under the Difficulty of it, 
by faying, |] For my part I maintain this Paffage 
either was in St. Augultin'j Bible^ or in cafe it was 
wanting., his Bible wa^ defe&ive. 'lis very true! 
His Btble then had this Defed ) which is what at 
prefent 1 aim at. 

From hence I infer, that St. Jercmh Bible had 
the fame Defcd alfo as to this Verfe ^ becaufe they 
two had fuch free Intercom fe by Letters in rela- 
tion to the Bible, and St. Auguftin knew fo well 
v;hat was in S^, Jeroyn\ Verdon, that 'tis juft to 
fappofe, if there had been a Difference in fo im- 
portant an Article, as this Text being in one Bible 
and wanting in the other, we iliould have heard 

* L. ^. Cont. AUxhn. dc quibus verifllme dici potuit, tves 

funt teftes, & tres unum funt. Si quo alio modo, &c. 

f Canon f/N. T. p. 78. |1 DiJJertat, fh. yi. 

of 



Mr. Martin^j Examination, &c. 41 

of it from them, irnong many other Matters of 
that kind, of fmiller moment. Jeromh^d many 
Oppofers who ceiifured his Perforina.ice, and ac- 
cufed him of altering the Scriptures againfl: the 
Authority of theAntients^ and St. ^^//-v him- 
felf for lb me time found fault with his Old 'Tefia^ 
tnent *, but yet in his Epiftle to him, he highly com- 
mended his Verfion of the New Teftameiit in thefe 
Words, We heartily thank God for your "Tr.-n flat ion of 
theGofpcl^ hecaufe there is nothing in it which offends 
us when we compare it with the '^ Greek. It leems 
then that St. Auguftin compared it with the 
Oreeky and found it to agree : but neither from 
the Greek Manufcripts, nor from St. ^tYom\ £- 
mendation of the NewTcftament^ (as SX..Jeroni\n. 
the next Epiftle, in anfvver to him, calls that 
which Auguflin named the Tranflation oftheGofpel) 
did he learn this. Text in St. John ^ nor does he 
objed any thing from the Italick Veruon about it \ 
tho, I fuppofe, he had as good a Right to have 
the common B\h\c^ which Mr. i^^rr/« talks of, as 
others after him. 

I may carry this Matter yet further. It appears 
that St. Augufiir' was well acquainted with Cypri^ 
/tns Works, who had been eminent in a neigh- 
bouring SeCy and whofe Writings he oft refers to ^ 
and tho he had very probably read, at leaft heard 
of his Teftimony from St. John concerning the 
Trinity, yet had he not gathered from thence, 
that there w€re any fuch Words in St. John as 
thefe, there are three that bear witncfs^ the Father^ 
Son^ and Holy Spirit^ any other wife than as it 
might be [aid fo^ by a myftical Interpretation of 
the other three Witnefles in the 8th ver, which, 
Fdcundm exprefly tells us, was alfo St. Cypr/^w's 
Meaning in that famous Teftimony. 

Which, by the way, may fatisfy us, that If the 

'•■ Aug. Hieron<ymo Epift. x. Ed. bajil, MDLVI. Qiiia pene 

in omnibus nulla offenfio eftjCumScripturamGr^eciiw contulerimus. 

F Jfri^ 



42 ^ R E P L Y to 

African BiHiops bad this Text in their Bibles after 
St. Auguftin*s time, yet it was not in the halick 
Verlioii ufed by him, who was more Eminent and 
Inquifitive than any of them ^ which may check ^ 
Mr. Martin % confident Conclufion with regard to 
the Italick Vevfion, That all the Monuments of this 
antient I'ranflation vos have extant in the Writings of 
the Father Sy agree in giving us this ^ Faff age* For 
we fee St. Aufiln did not agree in it \ nor confe- 
quently did St. Jeram's Bible^ if that and St. 
yiujlinh were fo much alike. And then I hope the 
Preface pretended for fuch could not be St. JerornSj 
nor any Proof that this Fcrfe was in his Bible, 

There is but one thing more I need fay upon this 
Head, and that is concerning the moft learned 
Dr. Bentleyh Latin Manufcripts, of a thoufand 
Years old or upwards, which is higher than the 
Bible of CW/f/ the Great ; thefe I have intimated 
are like to Ihew that St. Jerorns Bible had not this 
Text. )Ax, Martin fufpeds they are not fo antient ; 
this indeed mult reft, at prefent, on the Judgment 
of that excellent Critick, as Mr. Martin does, and 
all muft allow him to be. .Next he fays, the Book 
is yet to he written ; bat I hope the Manuscripts are 
not. Then he obferves that the Dr. takes no no- 
tice whether every of thefe Manufcripts be of the 
whole New Teftament, or only of Parts of it. I 
know not well how this matter lies \ but I fuppofe 
this latter, with Mr. Martin^ and underftand it 
fo, that fome have one part, and fome another, 
one can't expe^^ it otherwife : but if all that contain 
St. John's Epiftle, want this Verfe, 'tis all we need. 
But when he concludes fo daringly againft me, 
/ am well affured the Dodor and the Manufcripts 
will give him up to his bad Caufe j and that mine^whtch 
is the Caufe of Truths has nothing to fear from that 
f Quarter : I know not what to fay. but that Mr. 
Martin is a M3^a of ^reat Affurance ^ fo r whatever 
* ^x^^mat, cb, viii. f Examinat, ch, lu at the tnd. 

the 



Mr. MartinV Examination, &c. 43 

the Dr. may do, lam not afraid of the Manufcriptsj 
and I wonder how Mr. Martin pretends to come 
at this Aflurance, when any other Man will fee 
no Encouragement to it from the Letter { men- 
tion'd ^ and I have reafon to think Mr. Af^rtin^ if 
the Dr. publifh them in his time, may fall from the 
Height of his vain AfTurance into a fhameful Dif- 
appointment, and ytt the Caufe of Truth receive 
no hurt. Kor fhall I be afhamcd to pelter my felf^ 
which Mv, Martin upbraids me with, under thefe 
Manufcrifts ^ I'm fure not fo much, as if I had 
Ihelter'd my felfunder the Berlin Manufcript. But 
1 can forgive his Contempt of Manufcripts, when 
I confider that he has none to take fhelccr under i 
and (hall only tell him, as confident as he is, that 
this great Critick who has thefe Manufcripts, in a 
late publick Ledure at the Univerfity of Cambridge 
upon this Text^ has been very far from defending it. 
And the learned Dr.Waterland^ M after of /^^g-- 
iialen College in that Univerfity, has not thought 
thtsText oace worthy to be mention'd by him, ia 
bis late very large f^indication of Chrifi^s Divinity .• 
which none will think to be from Forgetfulnefs; 
tho Mr. Martin^ with as little reafon, fuppofes it 
of the primitive Writers. 

CHAP. IV. 

Of the two antient Greek Writers that are pretended 
to quote this Text, and of the Latin Writers, 



I 



Have urged againft this 7^AY,that not one genu- 
ine Greek Writer is found to have cited it oa 



any occafion, for many hundred, I believe not 
for a thoufand Years ^ and yet who fo likely to 
know the Greek Copies, as the Greeks themfelves ? 

Mr. Martin fays, that if it be {o^ the Text will 
lofe but one Proofs which may be difpenfed * with. 

*~Examtnat, chTxvT ' 

F 2 But 



44 ^ Reply ^0 

Bat yet be will not let it go without a ftruggle for 
it : And therefore produces the two Paflages from 
uncertain Authors among jithanafius\ Works ^ 
th^fi^ft from the Synopjis Scriptur^^ which, he lays^ 
F. Montfaucon allows at leafb to be 800 Tears aid* 
Mr. Martin thinks it to be Jthanafim*^ own. How- 
ever 'tis no matter which, becaufe 'tis little to the 
purpofe what he has faid, viz.. That St. John^ 
in his firll Epiftle, jliews the Vnity of the Son with the 
Father^ which I havefaid might well be a Reference 
toC/i. 2. V- 23. Mr. Martin fays, this Verfe does 
nnO:€m that Vmty *, and alfo that this Writer had 
done with the 2d, 3d, and 4th Chapter, and that 
theft; VVotdi Were fpoken upon the 5th. and On this 
cries out, There'^s no going hack. 

As to my felf, I am not about going hack^ 
but can prove my Point ^ but if he means 
that the Author niuft not go b*ick from the 
5th Chap, to the 2d. he has fpoken too late ; 
for he ha^ dune ir long ago. For, as he did not 
keep any llrid Order, but wrote as things occur'd 
to his Memory, after fomething faid on the 3d 
Ch, v. 8. going back to the 2d. and after mention- 
ing the Sin vnto Deathj and not toDeathy in the 5th, 
returning to the 4th, ^bont try ing thrSpirits^ whe- 
ther they he from God', Co having mentioned thefe 
Words, of the Vnity of the Son' and Father^ he im- 
mediately conneds with them theexprefs Words 
of Ch. 2.23. And that he who denies the Son hath 
not the Father \ by which we may fee what his Eye 
was upon : And indeed was it Athanafivs^ and 
had he referred to our Text \ who can doubt but 
he would have faid, St. John fhews the Trinity^ 
or the Unity of me Father, Son, and Spirit \ 
and that he would have mentioned this Text 
twenty times over in his other Writings ? So that 
this is but a very poor Evidence. 

His other Author is that of a Dialogue be- 
tween Athanafus and Arius '^ none knows who 

he 



Mr. Martini Examination, &c: 45 

he was, arwd 'tis difputed whether a Greek or a 
Latin, Dr. Cave fays, it was frme raving Monk: 
Mr. ^</^rf/« aflerts at all adventures, that he was 
An honefi Orthodox Chriftian. Kear the end of his 
Work i!?^ drops a (h'.rt Sentence, Add to this^ St. 
John fays, the Three are One \ which looks like a 
fmall Poftfcript added. The Words o/Tp«^Talr«V/, 
have one little Particle, one Syllabic, roo wwc^ for 
the 7th Verfe of St, John ^ and one too little for 
the 8th : fo that it determines nothing. Mr. 
Martin takes no notice of this, and is not juft ia 
faying, that without the Word tnV, the 7th F^erfe^ 
fany more than the 8th) is hinted at. So that we 
have not one fingle Teltimony to depend on from 
any or all the Greek Writers, who yet were 
poflefled of the Crff^^ Telt amen ts. 

1 (hall not therefore be very anxious about the 
Latin African Writers in the fifth Century ox after- 
wards *, tho this indeed is Mr. Afartinh only.plau- 
fible Plea for the Authority of the Text. As to 
Si. Cyprian, nothing is faid to invalidate the Ac- 
count of Fyicundm^ which is confirmed alfo by 
Fulgentiuj^f (as I conceive from the Word Confi- 
tetur) and which clears that matter. But as for 
all the others after him, in thQ fifth Age^ above 
a hundred Years after Ariy^ and Athanafiti6\ time ^ 
and to whofe Allegations we have no Anfwers of 
the Arians handed down to us, all being fapprcfs'd 
or loft ^ for there is no doubt but they h.id 
fomething tofay, or they yielded the Vidory to 
their Adverfaries, who would not have been 
wholly filent of fuch a Triumph, obnined by 
means of a Text which their Forefathers, in the 
Heat of that long Controverfy, had ntver once 
thought of: 1 fay, as for thefe, f^ppofing their 
Teftimonies tobe taken from the 7th Verfe, and 
that they had the 8th l^efidcs, which'does not ap- 
pear ; and fuppojing tht'iv Writings have not been 
alter'd by the Reviftrs or Publifhers that causM 

them 



^6 J Reply to 

them to be printed *, who fo often have adapted 
their Scripture Citations to the Vulgar Ferficn^ 
(which ¥. Simon fays we mult keep in mind, in 
reading the Latin Fathers who liv'd before St. 
Jerom\ Verlioii was receiv'd ^) of which I took 
notice formerly in fpeaking of Evcherimh Tefli- 
mony ; yet there is one thing to be confider'd, 
of great weight, which is more than fvfpfedy 
and is fully proved, viz.. That in their time, and 
before it, there was a great deal of Confalioa and 
Variety ia the Latin Copies of the New Telia- 
rnent, and many ///w/?r^f;o?7j added^QVen in Cyprians 
•3^ time : And this was the Occafion of St. Jerom's 
corrediug the New Teftament ^ as Mr. Martm 
cannot deny. Sr.Jfro/^ complains of thefe Mat- 
ters, in his Preface to the Gofpels. 

in anfwer to fomc who found fault with his 
Deflgn, //, fays he, they fay that the Latin Cofies 
are to he credited *, let tkem tell me which ? For there 
are almofi ai many different Copes at there are Boohs j 
tphypould rve not have recourfe to the Greek Origi- 
nal^ to ccrreB the Faidts which proceeded either from 
had Tranfation^ or iwjvft CorreBions^ or from Ad- 
dkions and Alterations by carelefs Copiers ? And 
St. Augvftin had fuch an Opinion of thefe Cor- 
ruptions of the Latin Bibles of the New Tefta- 
ment, that, with refpedt to their Difference from 
the Greek Originals and St.Jcromh new Verfion, 
he calls them the old Faljities in his afore. mention'd 
Bpiltle : If any one^ thro Contention^ jlm/l plead for 
the old Falilty, he is eajily convinced or confuted by 
producing and comparing the (Greek) '\ Copies. By 
this we may difcern how the Latin Bibles differ'd, 
and that it was very poflible, nay eafy, for St. 
Augujlins to want, what fome other African''^ 

f- F. Simons Crit. Hift. of Verf. of N. Teft. ch, vi. 
\ Unde (i quifpiam veteri falfitati confentiofius faverit, pro- 
latis colUaique Codicibus, vel docetui facillime, vel lefellimr. 

Bible 



My. Martini Examination, &c. 47 

Bible might have^ at leaft after his time ^ and 'tis 
abfurd to talk of one common Bible of all the Latin 
Churches^ Out of which their Citations were taken 9 
when'tis from thefe Citations that the Difference 
of their Books appear. 

And therefore fince St. Jerom''^ BuHnefs was to 
correc.t ftich ImerfGlations^ Omijficns^ and ylltera- 
tions^ it follows that if he did not retain this 
f^erje in his Bible, he, if he found it at all, e- 
Iteem'd it as a fpurious Addition. Indeed 'twas 
likely enough fuch a fine myftical Senfe of the 
Water^ Bloody and Sprite being fo common a- 
mong them, fome or other would add it (as they 
oft did other Words) by w^ay of lllullration, to 
the Text it felf^ and fo 'twould remain : for 
thoSt. Jcrom reform'd the Latin Verhon, yet it 
was not received prefently, but made its way by 
degrees in fome Ages before the other Verfion was 
laid afide: and many reformed, din^corredcd ihz 
other by St. Jerom\^ in the Places which they 
thought to be corrupted, fome in one Place, fome 
in another ^ which caus'd great Confufion in the 
Latin "^ Manufcripts ^ and, I may add, gave great 
trouble to the Revifers who came after : but with- 
al. it gave them an handle to omit, or keep in fome 
PalFages, as might be molt agreeable to the Sen- 
timents of the Time they liv'd in. 

And therefore if St.Jerom had not this Text^ 
it is of no great weight, that fome Copies, fup- 
pofed to be taken from that of Charles the Greats 
have it. Indeed Mr. Martin fuppofes fuch abun- 
dance of good and great Things, concerning thofe 
^fz/z/frj under that Prince, that they were fo ju- 
dicious, fo exad, fo careful, fo impartial, and 
confulted fo many, and the belt Latin Alanufcripts, 
and Greek ones too, and that they kept in this 



* Ch. viii. Alfo Bingham'; Antici. Vol. 6. P-443' 

Verfe 



4? A Reply, &c. 

Verfe alfo ^ that he would leave us no room for 
any doubt, but that.all was right : but the World 
has been fo oft dcceiv'd with fuch Pretences, that 
they will not now pafs, when contradided by 
rational Arguments •, and by ftrong Evidence on 
the other fide, from all the Greek Manufcripts 
which are older, as fome of them are, than thofe 
times^ and from all the Greek Fathers, and even 
from St. Jerom himfelf, as I hope is made to ap- 
pear. For tho Mr. Mdrtin^ with all his Preten- 
ces to Logick, is unreafonable in expecting poll- 
tive Proofs of 2inegative?Qmt'^ yet I have jult 
Reafoij to require a pofitive Proof of the Jffir- 
mative^ (not mere Prefumptions) i/ix. That this 
Text is, or ever was, in any antient Greek Ma- 
nufcripts, or even in St. Jeromh own Verfion cor- 
reded by them. 

And therefore, when Mr. Martin can inform 
us truly, that one of his many fuppofed, mijlaid^ 
or loft Greek Manufcripts, is found again, the 
World will be ready to hear of it ^ but when a 
Controverfy comes to confift only of tedious Re- 
petitions, and perfonal Reflexions, 'tis a fign it 
either is near to an end, or ought to be fo. 



F I K 1 S. 



Errata, 
AG. 10. 1. ii« r. <^A(imum, Pag. 14. in the Notes, 



THE 



GENUINENESS 



OF THE 



Text of the Firft Epiftle 
of Saint 70// A^. 

Chap. V. 1^. 7. 

There are Three in Heaven^ &c. 

Demonftrared by Proofs which are beyond 
all Exceprion, taken from the Tcftimonies 
of the Greek and Latin Churche^;, and par- 
ricularly from a Greek MS. of the New^ 
Teftamcnr, found in Ireland. 



By T> A V IT> M A RT I N, Redor of 
the /Va^rA Church at Utrecht, Author of 
the 'D'tjfertation upon this Text^ 8cc. 

TranOated from the Ftci'cb. 



LONDON: 

Printed for W. and J. Innys at the Prince's Arm? 
at the ^ejl End of St. PauPs Church-yard. 
* Mdccxxii. 




THE 



PREFACE. 




HO' I engage a third time upon the 
fubjedl of this famous Text m St. 
Joh'/i's Epiflle, T'bere are three in Hea- 
'ven which bear record^ the Father^ the 
Word^ and the Holy Ghcfl^ and the fe 
three are one\ it is not to conrinuc the defence of 
it againil Mr. Emlyn, There would be no end in 
removing the miflakes he commits in this mat- 
ter, and I am natuvally an enemy to Ihife ^.nA de- 
bates. I have always been of opinion, that when 
a truth is fufficicntly clear'd up, all that is added 
thereto by reiterated difputes, rather carries it off 
from its true point of light, than is capable of fix- 
ing the mind upon it. Qiieitions are multiply^d, 
new difficulties ar$ flatted that arc foreign to the 
principal fubjed, pcrfonal intcrefts are infenHbly 
mix'd with it, and in this confufion the Reader's 
jnind, divided betwixt fo many different matters, 

A 2 gives 



The PREFACE. 

gives but an impevfcd: attention to the fubjcft up- 
on which it /hoLild be wholly employ'd. 

Mr. Emiyn has lately publifli'd a Piece, under the 
name of a Reply to the Examination I bad made 
of his Anfwer, by which he bad pretended to con- 
fute my Didertation upon the pailage of St. Jobji-, 
hut as he has .but flighrly run over fome paflages, 
and not touched upon divers others which carry de- 
mbnftration and conviiSlion along with 'cm, 1 fliall 
have no need to return frequently to him 5 and if 
this was all 1 had to do, 1 might have dilpensVI 
with writing again upon the fame fubjeeb. The 
only thing which could have engaged me in it, 
would have been to defend my mnocence in the 
quotation I had made of a Manulcript of Berlin^ 
upon occafion of which Mr. Emlyn h^s thought 
fit to f riumph -, but one or two Sheets inferred in 
forhe one of the Critical Journals would haVe fuf- 
ticM for this, and all the reft of his Piece. 

Mr. Emiyn therefore and his Reply will be here 
but incidentally fpoke of, and according as the 
matters I iball have to treat of will require : the 
principal dcfign of this Work docs not turn upon 
thatj and the purpofe of it is of more concern to 
Chriliians, who owning no other foundation of 
their Faith than the facred Scripture, cannot but 
with fingular edification fee a Text, in which the 
myftery of the Trinity is evidently taught, defend- 
ed againft thofe, who thro' the malignant force 
of prejudice, or an exprefs hatred to this (acred 
myikry, endeavour to take from it this Apofto- 
lick paflage, and deny it to be St. John's. 

I had prov'd the gcnuinencfs of it by the mofl 
fohd arguments, that can be urg'd for a fa6b oJF 
this nature; and thefe proofs are lo numerous, and 
of fo many different kinds, that 'tis impoffible 
not to be convinc'd by 'em , unlefs an obftinate 

refolution 



The PREFACE. 

fefolution formed of fee purpofe againll this Gcred 
Text, lliuts mens eyes to Reafon it felF. I have 
produc'd the tellimony of the La'm Church from 
the fecond Age up to the lafl: j the tellimony of 
the Greek Church-, and lallly, the Gr^^^ Munu- 
fcripts of St. Johri's Epiftle, in the firft of all the 
Editions which were made of the New Tefta- 
ment in Greeks in which Cardinal Ximenes em- 
ployed feveral learned Men, and which was print- 
ed at Complutum from excellent Manufcripts in 
If 1 3. After this famous Edition comes that of 
Erafmus in ifiz. in which this learned Critick 
and Divine, inferts this pafTage of St. John in 
the manner it lay in a Manufcript found in Eng-^ 
land. Thele two ancient Editions were follow'd 
by thofe of Robert Stephens^ who in the year 
I f 4(5. and i f 49. publilli'd the Greek New Te- 
ftament with this Text, agreeably to feveral Ma- 
nufcripts which he had from the Library of King 
Francis the Firll, and fome other Libraries of that 
time. 

Divers attempts have been made to enervate 
the force of this proofs I have given 'em in my 
two former Treatifes, and have fhew'd the weak- 
nefs of them. But ^ F. le Lon;^^ of the Oratory, 
has lately taken a new mechod of oppofing the 
Editions of Robert Stephens^ namely, by produ- 
cing the Manufcripts he thinks to have been thofe 
of this learned Printer, in which the pafTage of St 
John is not found. I have ihewn that this Fa- 
ther, as learned as he is, has been too credulous 
in taking the Manufcript he produces from the 
King's Library for thofe of Stephens's-, and I prove 
invincibly from the Manufcripts themfelves, that 



* F. \e Long's Letter dated April li. 1710. and inferred in 
the ]JQf4rnal des Savans in June. 

a they 



The PREFACE. 

they cannot have been thofe of Stephens. This fs 
a point wholly new, which has never been brought 
into this Controverfy, and which deferves to be 
examin'd with (o much the more accuracy and 
exadnefs, as the rubje6l of it is extremely mo- 
mentous, and the manner F. le Long has followed, 
is dazling and apt to lead into miilake. 

To return now to the TeHimonies of the Latin 
Churches, I confirm the quotation which Tertul- 
lian and St. Cyprian have made of the Text of the 
witneflTes in Heaven with new reafons, and 1 add 
withal to the inftances by which I had prov'd 
that this pafTage was anciently in the Italick Ver- 
fion, and in that of St. Jerom^ feveral authorities, 
taken from divers Divines, which had never been 
quoted, at leaft that I know of, upon this impor- 
tant fubjeft. 

Coming then to the Greek Church, I fhew that 
it has own'd this Text to be authentick in the 
paft ages as well as the prefents and I do it by 
the teitimony of the Mufcovite Church, which, 
as all the world knows, is an ancient branch of 
the Greek. I have not feen that hitherto any of 
the Divines, who have wrote upon this Text, 
have made ufe of this proof, to ihew it to be 
authentick. I have had upon this all the infor- 
mations I jndg'd neceffary, and was poffible for 
mej and I hope that every Reader, who feeks af- 
ter edification, will be fiuisfy'd therewith. 

Another fort of proof, which had no lefs than 
the former efcap'd the enquiry of the Criticks 
and Divines, is a very curious Edition of the 
New Teliament in modern Greek made in 1658. 
plac'd over againil thj htteral Greek in two Co- 
lumns, by a Greek Monk, nam'd Maximus^ of the 
Town of CalllpoiiSj which is a fufFragan Billiop- 
lick to the Patriarch of Confiantinopk. The fa- 
mous 



The P R E F A C E. 

mous Cyril Lucar^ a Patriarch zealous for tire 
inltru6t:ion of his Flock, in a Preface fct before 
this Edition, has recommended in prefTlng terms 
the reading of this Work , which is a fort of 
tranflation of the New Tellament into modern 
Greek. It will be i'cen from the remarks I have 
made upon the nature of this Verfion, what ad- 
vantage it affords us for the genuinenefs of the 
Text o't St. John's Epilile. 

Ladly, we Ihali find in this Difcourfc an au- 
thentick Piece never yet produc'd, ar.d which 
gives the finilhing fcroke to all the proofs urg'd 
for the genuinenefs of this Textj and this is the 
extra6b of an ancient Greek Maniifcript of the 
New Teftament found at Dublin in the Univerfity 
Library. 1 am endebted for this Extra6i: to the good 
nature and zeal of Mr. 7^card^ formerly Miniiler 
in France^ and now Dean of Jconry at Dublin, 
I received it about the end of lall Ocfober^ whea 
1 began to recover from a languilliing ilate of ill- 
nefs, which join'd to my great age, was likely 
to put an end to my life. It was no fmall joy 
to me CO fee the facred Text, which found fo 
many contradictors, arife from the obfcurity in 
which it had lain hid with the xVlanulcripc 
that contains it. Mr. Tcard fent me a very 
long difcourfe with the Exrraft, v;hich tended 
to fhew that this Manufciipt is the fame which 
was exprcifed in the Englijh Polyglott by the name 
of Mont, abridged from that of Mont fortius^ to 
whom it had formerly belong'd, and which was 
afterward the famous UJJjer's^ Archbiihop of Ar- 
magh in Ireland. I have made ufe of fome par- 
ticular obfervations upon divers paOagcs of this 
excellent Manufcript, which are alfo communica- 
ted to mc by the fame Mr. Tcdtd^ with whom I 
have fincc had, upon :his occ^fion , coirclpon- 

Lqnc<? 



The PREFACE. 

dence by Letters. IF I had judg'd it neceflary 
to produce a greater number of this fort of par- 
ticulars, 1 ihould not have fail'd to do irj but I 
contented my felf with thofe which have ap- 
peared to me moil proper to Ihew the nature of 
the Manufcript, whofe teftimonv and authority 
are fo advantagious to the proofs J have urg'd for 
the genuinenefs of the palTage of St. John's Epi- 
ille. They have required a Manufcript own'd to 
be ancient and genuine, which had this paflage j 
here is one found and produc'd -, thanks to the 
Divine Providence which has preferv'd it to us^ 
to take away all pretence from the incredulity of 
^he one, and to confirm the Faith of the others. 




THE 



THE 

CONTENTS. 

P A K T I. 

In which it is moft evidently fhewn, that ihQ Lat'm 
Church has always own'd this Text to be au- 
thentick 

CHAP. I. 

THAT* to maintain the genuinenefs of this Text 
is of great importance to the dotlrine of the Tri- 
nity. Page i 

C H A P. II. 
7he Text of the three witnejfes in Heaven cleared up^ 
for the better underflanding the importance and 
force of it^ which were fpoke of in the foregoing 
Chapter, p. j 

CHAP. in. 

Of the nature of the proofs on which the genuinenefs 
of the Text of the three witneffcs in Heaven^ the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, mufl be 
efiabUfljed', and of the nullity of thofe^ %vhich are 
urged again fl it. p. ip 

CHAP. IV. 

That the Text of the three witneffes in Heaven was 
from the fir ft Ages in the Icalick Ferfion^ prov'd 
from the quotations of Tertullian and St. Cyprian. 

p. Z5 
CHAP. V. 

Other proofs that the Text of the witneffes in Heaven 
was in the old Icalick Ferfwn. p. 3 1 

CHAP. 



The CONTENTS. 

CHAP. VI. 

Containing fome new reflexions upon the ProfeJJion of 
Faith^ which was prefented to Huneric by the 
African Bifloops, p. jp 

CHAP. VII. 

Other (quotations of the Italick Verfion in favour of 
^e pajfage in St, John's Epijlle^y taken from t^vo 
ancient Tra5ts^ afcrib'd to St. Fulgencius. p. 44 

CHAP. VIII. 

Of the judgment St. Jerom has made of this Text^ 
in his Prologue to thefeven Catholick Epiflles. p. 47 

CHAP. IX. 

T'hat the l^ext of the three witneffes^ the Father, the 
Word, and the Holy Gholt, and thele three are 
one, was always in tS*^. Jerom's Verfion, p. f4 

CHAP. X. 

What judgment muB he pafs^d upon the Latin Mann- 
fcripts of the Vulgate of St. Jerom, which have not 
the I'ext of the Father y the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft. 

P- f9 



ART 



II 



In which, the paflage of St. John'^ Epiftle, fhere 
are three in Heaven^ 6cc. is provM to be genuine 
from the Greek Copies, and the u(e of the Greek 
Church. 

CHAP. I. 

THATt the two ancient hum VerfionSj the Italick 
and the Vulgate of St. Jerom, are a proof that 
tb§ difputed paj/age was in the Greek Copies, p. 6f 

C HA P. 



The C O N T E N T S. 

CHAP. IT. 

Of the fir fi Greek Editions^ in which the T'ext of the 
three ivitnej/es in Heaven is read^ and of thofe in 
which this Text is not inferted. p. 69 

CHAP. III. 

"The paffage of St.] ohn provd to he genuine from the 
Greek Manufcripts with fome particular confidera^ 
tions upon the M-im^fcripts of L:iurentius Valla, 
upon that in/Complutum, and thcu of England or 
the Codex Britannicus. p. j^ 

CHAP. IV. 

Of Robert ScephensV Manufcripts, p. %^ 

CHAP. V. 

Of the obelus plac'd in the middle of the 7^^ Verfe^ 
There are three in Heaven, i3c. of' the Manu- 
fcripts mentioned by the Divines of Louvam, and of 
that of which F. Amelotceyjj'j he faw at Rome. 

p. pi 
CHAP. VI. 
A Defence of the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens 
agiinfi certain Manufcripts produced from the Li- 
brary of the King of France, which are pretended 
to be the fame that Stephens ufed in his Editions, 

p. 101 

CHAP. VIL 

Of the Mmufcript <?/ Berlin. P- ^ ^ f 

CHAP. VIII. 

Particular reflexions upon the genuine nefs or forgery of 
the Manufcript of the Greek New tefiament which 
is at Berlin in the King's Library. ?• ^^.j 

CHAP. IX. 

Of the ancient Greek Ti^riters^ who have quoted this 
Text of the fir fl Epifile of St. John, There are 
three, which bear record, ij?c. p. 1 5f 

CHAP. 



TheC ONTENTS. 

CHAP, X. 

7hat the Greek Church has always oivn*d this Text 

to be genuine : prov'd from its Rituals^ its Confef- 

ftons of faith ^ and the teflimony of the Mufcovite 

Church, p. 1 4.1 

CHAP. XL 

Of the Verfion of the New fefiament in modern Greek 
by Maximus a Monk o/Callipolis, in which is the 
Text of the three witnejfes in Heaven^ the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Gholtj and thefe three 
are one. ij-o 

CHAP. XII. 

Of the an:ient Greek Manufcript found at Dublin, 
which has the paj] age that makes thefubje^ of this 
DiJ/ertation. P- ^f f 

CHAP. XIII. 

T'he Panoplia dogmatica of Euthymius Zygabenus, 
the Manufcript of Dublin, the Greek Tranjlation 
cf the Council of h^tY^n^ and the Codex Bntanni- 
cus o/Erafmus, blended together^ and reciprocally 
giving light to each other ^ in behalf of the genuine- 
nefs of the pajfage of St. John, There are in Hea- 
ven, which bear record, ^c. p. i66 

CHAP. XIV. 

j^ brief recapitulation of the principal proofs urg^d 
for the gcnuincnefs of the pajfage of St. JohnV 
firfi Epijile^ There are three that bear record m 
Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Ghoilj and thele three are one. p. ijf 



Thi 



The y'^Verfe of the \'^Chap. of St, John's 
firfi Eptflle, There are three, ^c. 
prov'dto he geyiutne beyond all Except 
tton^fromthe ancient Latin Bibles ^the 
flotations of the Fathers, theTeflimo- 
ny of the Greek Church , and lajtly 
from an old Greek MS. of the New 
- Tefiament in the Library at DuhVm. 

PART I. 

in which it is moft evidently Ihewn, chat the 
Latin Church has always ovvn'd this Text 
to be auchentick. 

CHAP. I. 

That to maintain the genuinenefs of this Text 
is of great importance to the doBrine of 
the Trinity. 

HE firfl ground of all religion in ge- 
neral is to believe that there is a God \ 
and the great foundation of the Chri- 
(lian Religion in particular, is to be- 
lieve three divine Ferforfs in one only 
and the fame divinity. The fole light of natur.il 
reafon may fuffice to every one, who is carefully 
attentive to confulc it, for the fimple belief of a 
God, an eternal and almighty Being, from whom 

B every 




( o 

^very thing that exifts has deriv'd its original 5 but 
the blighted and pureft lights of natural reafon, 
could never attain to the belief of one God in three 
PeiTonsj faith alone can foar fo high, and that on- 
ly by the afliilance of divine Revelation. This Re- 
velation is contain'd in the Holy Scripture, but is 
moH plainly difclofed in the Books of the New 
Teihmcnr. The great truth of one God in three 
Perfons, Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, which lay 
hid to all human underllanding, and in the firlt 
ages of the Church was difcern'd by faith amidil 
the fliadows of an obfcure Revelation, has happily 
fecn that obfcurity difappear at the approach of the 
Gofpel day : faith is no longer at a lofs to acknowledge 
that to be there, which it finds fpread thro' every 
part 5 fince with God the Father is in all places 
found the Son of God, his only Son, his own 
Son, Creator of the world} and with this eternal 
Son, the Holy Ghofl:, proceeding from the Father 
and the Son, the Author and principle of the faith 
oTthe cled, the adorable fourcc of all fpiritual gifts, 
and fan61:ifier of fouls. Thefe three divine Perfons 
are ken together in feveral Texts of Holy Scrip- 
lure , in Vv'hich their diilinftion is fo clearly ex- 
preis'd, that faith difcerns 'em with the eye that 
reads 'em. The command which Jefus Cbrifi gave 
the Apodles to baptize in the Name of the Father^ 
and the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft^ has render'd the Tri- 
nity of perfons in oneGodheau in a manner vifible in 
Baptifm : the didin6lion of Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghoil', each v/i[h the eflential chara6ters of true 
God, prefents it felf at one fingle view in the xii^'^ 
chapter of the iiril Epiille to the Corinthians^ from 
the 4.^'^ verfe to the 1 1 ''^ incluGvely : and the Pray- 
er oi: St. Paul for the fame Corinthians at the clofe 
of his fecond Epiille has united thefe three adorable 
Perfons, as forming all three together the fruitful 
fourcc of all benediction} I'he grace of our L(jrd 



( 3 ) 

'Jefus Chrijl^ the love of Gorij (i. e. God the Fa- 
ther,) arid the fellowfiip of the Holy Ghofl be vuitb you 
all. Ladly, the Apoillc Sr. John in the 7^'^ f. of 
the v^^ chap, of his firil general Epillle prefents 
at once the fame Trinity of divine Perfon?, and in 
a manner fo exprefs, that 'lis impoflibie not to be 
fenfible of it : 'There are three^ lays he, which bear 
record in heaven.^ the Father^ the IVord^ and the Holy 
Ghofl 'y and thefe three are one. 

Herefy has forna'd no oppofition agalnfl the ge- 
nuinencfs of the three other pafTagcs, I have jull 
mention'd 5 it has been contented to elude then- 
force and convi6i:ion, as well as it could : but for 
the latter, which is that of St. John^ it can't re- 
folve with it felf to own it for the genuine Text 
of the Apoftle. For fifteen hundred years a forc'd 
lilence has been kept as to this matter 3 but the 
farther ages have been advanc'd, and the more re- 
mote they are grown from thofe firll: times, when 
the Churches had that Scripture in the holy Apollle's 
own hand writing, the antitrinitarian herefy has 
become proportionably bold todeny,'_that thisiacred 
Text was really St. John's. This happen'd not 'till 
after the year one thoufand five hundred and eigh- 
teen, or twenty J as I have obferv'd in my Difler- 
tation upon this celebrated Text. 

It has found, and yet finds, among the Orthodox, 
zealous defenders of its genuinenefsj and their zeal 
is fo far from being -ivlthout knowledge^ that on the 
contrary it proceeds from the exad enquiry they have 
made into this particular fubjcd. If among the 
real Chriftians, who iincerely believe the njyikry 
of the Trinity, fome perfons are found, who daz- 
zled with the falfe light of the objcdlions brought 
by the Heterodox, continue in a manner unde- 
termin'd whether this Text be genuine or no j I 
will venture to f^y, that 'tis only for want of giv- 
ing themfelves the trouble to weigh matureiy ihe 

B i rcafons 



(4) 

rcafons on both fides : they might find in my DiT? 
fertation all thofe of the oppofite party, with the 
fohd aqlwers I have given to 'em, and againft which 
the enemy of the Text I have defended has been 
able to make but flender efforts 5 but for the proofs 
which make out this pafTage to be genuine, they 
are fo evident and ftrong in the fame Difcourfe, 
and will receive fuch an additional augmentation in 
this, that for the future no doubt cap remain con- 
cerning a truth of this importance. 

To this want of examination and ftudy, there is 
join'd in fome mens minds , I know not what 
confidence in the other proofs of the adorable Tri- 
nity, taken from paflagcs which the Hereticks 
don't difpute to be genuine > and imagining herer 
upon that this may be difpens'd with, they don't 
think themfelves much concern'd to retain it. We 
have, fay they, fo many others, which teach us 
this profound myflery, and even feveral that are 
no lefs ftrong than that of St. John^ that nothing 
would be lolt, tho' we had not this PalTage, or 
tho' the queftion fhould be left undetermined, whe- 
ther it really belongs to the Epiftle of that Apo- 
ille, or is an interpolation. 

I own, I find no edification in fuch an opinion, 
and in my judgment a Chriftian ought not to be 
fo indifferent concerning a Pallage, which he finds 
in the Holy Scriptures. \^ the Holy Ghoft 
has plac'd it there, 'tis a crime to give it up 
to the audacious criticifm of the enemies to the 
do6lrine it contains j and I conceive nothing more 
injudicious, I will even fay, nothing which comes 
nearer contempt, than to afiert that this Text 
may well be difpens'd with, for this frivolous rea- 
fon, becaufe we have many others in which the do- 
ctrine of the Trinity is clearly made good. The 
oppofite error could not be better gratify'd, than 
by feeing a Text difappcar, by which it finds it felf 

confounded. 



( 5 ) 

qonfounded. It yields, it falls under the weight 
of the refl-, but this gives the finilhing ftrokc, and 
prevents all means of rifing again. In all the other 
Texts, that are urg'd againft it, the three Pcrfons 
of the Trinity are feen j but they are in none fct 
down by the precife number three 5 that of the E- 
piftle of St. John is the only one where this num- 
ber is exprefs'd, and 'tis by the force of the word 
three^ that the ancient Fathers oppos'd the error of 
Praxeas^ and of Sahellius^ who acknowledging in 
the Divinity the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Gholl, yet refused to allow of three^ and made but 
one perfon, of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghod. The Brians have, with us, own'd 
the three \ and having form'd after their manner a 
fort of Trinity, they baptized in the name of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl:, without 
owning the Son to be God co-eflential with the 
Father, but God notwichftanding, according to 
their deceitful way of explication, as the Socinians 
do now j and for the Holy Spirit, they made fuch 
a perfon of him, as they pleas'd, and their herc(y 
could admit of 5 but they did not own him to be 
God, as the Son, nor did they believe him to be 
a divine Perfon. 'Tis for this rcafon 1 have faid ia 
my Examination againft Mr. Emlyn^ that they 
did not own the Holy Ghoft to be a perfon really 
^xijl'mg^ fo as to make with the Father and the 
Son a Trinity of divine Perfons. According to 
them, the Holy Ghoft is but a kind of Angel, who 
was created by the Son, and is infinitely inferior 
to him. 

However it be, the Avians have own'd three 
pcrfons. Now the Texts which I have quoted, njiz. 
that of the adminiftration of Baptifm, and the two 
others, taken from the Epiftle of St. Paul to the 
Corinthians^ go no farther than to denote thefc 
three pcrfons. To convince then the Arians in- 

tirely 



(6) 

tn'ely by one Text of Scripture, in this Text the 
Trinity and Unity both together muft be equally 
fet before their eyes j for 'tis the unity in the 
number three, which is the ftumbling-flock to the 
Brians and the fubjed' of their incredulity. The 
only Text which comprehends all this, (the Tri- 
nity, 1 fay, and the Unity,) is this pafTage of St. 
John^ There are three^ which hear record in heaven^ 
the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghofi j and thefe 
three are one. If the Avian gives me up this Text, 
he leaves in my hands the ilrongefl weapon 1 can 
employ againft him, and he will hope in vain to 
fecure himfelf by mean fubtleties and imaginary di- 
ilindtions. The advantage then, which To vifibly 
accrues to us from thefe words againft the moil 
peftilent of all herefies, the Arian or Socinian^ 
fliould make ic be look'd on, at lead by all the 
Chriftians who believe the myftery of the Trinity, 
as an Apoftolick Text, and entirely remove from 
their minds, that fort of indifference, which they 
pretend to have for its being authentick. If thofc, 
tvho openly oppofe it, as the Socinian party does, or 
thofe who waver betwixt its being genuine andfup- 
podtitious, had arguments to urge againft us, which 
it was not poffible to give very fatisfa6tory folutions 
to 5 or if we, who defend its genuinenefs, had not 
any good proofs to fupport it, I own that in all 
thefe cafes it would be the wifeft conduct to fufpend 
our judgment upon a queftion of fad, which might 
then pa{s for problematical: but this Text is found 
in all our Bibles 5 'tis in all the Greek Editions of 
the New Teftament, except three only, two of 
Erafmus^ and one oi Aldus -y the whole Church 
owns it to be genuine, and this is enough to form 
a conclufion in favour of its being (p. But fhould 
they yet urge againft all this, arguments which 
were very near of the fame force, and which might 
ji|ftly ftrike upon the mindj then, I fay, there 

might 



(7) 

might be room for doubts and uncertainties. But 
the c:iCc is very different : The evidence, force, and 
number of proofs all fpeak the paflage of the three 
witnclfes in heaven to be genume, and they have 
nothing to urge againll it, but conjectures drawn 
from the filence of Ibme old Greek and Latin Fa- 
thers, of fome MSS. of the New Teilament, in 
which this paflage is not found j and laftly, of 
fome ancient Verfions, in which it is wanting. 
As for real proofs, and proofs of fa6t which im- 
pugn this pafl^ige, and are contradi6tory to thofe 
which are drawn from the ancient Verfions, the 
quotations of antiquity, and the Greek and Latm 
MSS to llicw that it really belongs to the Epillle 
of St. yobn^ they have not been able to produce 
one^ after lb many attempts they have made to 
find it i and without any hazard, I'll venture to 
fay, they never will find one of this fort. 

CHAP. II. 

The Text of the three witrteffes in heaven 
cleared upy for the better underflanding the 
import ante and force of it^ which were 
ffoke of in the foregoing Chapter. 

THE firfl: thing, which here offers it felf to 
be clear'd up, and which may create fome 
difficulty in the minds of thofe perfons, who rather 
feek for a pretence to doubt of the Text's being 
genuine, ihan to be convinc'd of its authority, is 
that 'tis there faid of the three witneffes, that they 
bear record in heaven : for how is it poffible, they 
flreight cry, that an Apoftle fhould have faid, that 
'tis in heaven the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghod bear record in honour of Jejus Chrifl^ '\x\ or- 
der 



( g ) 

dcr to prove that he is really the Son of God, and 
the Meffiah? A teftimony is given in the places^ 
and before the Perfons, 'tis necefTary it fhonld be 
givenj either thro' ignorance of the matter in de- 
bate, or the contradiftions that incredulity oppofes 
to it 5 but as nothing of all this can be found in 
heaven, of what ufe are thefe witnefles and their 
tellimony ? I have flightly touched upon this fniall 
difficulty in my Differtation^ and in my Examina- 
tion j but becaufe without enlarging faither upon 
it, I contented my felf with faying, that *twas one 
of thofe tranfpofitions of words, which are very 
common in all languages, efpecially in the more an- 
cient j and that even divers inllanees were ft-en of 
it in Holy Scripture, without giving my felf the 
pains to produce one, it will not be inexpedient, 
if as I defign in this treatife to take my leave of 
this paflage^ (that 1 may not return to it againj) I 
fhould here fct down fome inllanees of tranfpofiti- 
ons of words in the ftyle of the facred Writers. I 
fay then, that thefe two words in heaven are tran- 
fpos'd in the TeXt under examination, and put out 
of their natural and grammatical place 3 forinftead of 
faying, there are three that bear record in heaven^ the 
order of the conitrudion in the Greek phrafe fhould 
be , there are three in heaven that bear record. I 
have obferv'd that Socinus himfelf has allow'd of 
this in his Commentary upon thefe words of the 
Epiftle o^ St. Johnj and I have withal infinuaced in 
favour of thole, who are not acquainted with the 
Greek tongue, that the tranfpofition of thefe words 
is far Icis fenlible in the phrafe of the Original^ 
than in our Verfionsj but if inftances are requir'd, 
here are fome taken from the Old and New Te- 
llament. 

We read in the book o^ Genejts^ ch. xv. f. 13. 
thefe words of God to Abraham j Know of a furety^ 
that thy feed JIo all be a fir anger in a land that is not 

theirs^ 



(9) 

theirs^ and fij.ill ferve them , and they Jljall afflict 
them four hundred years. Thefe words four hun- 
dred years are mod cerrninly there out oF their 
true place; for the bondage and perfecution of the 
people of God in Egypt endur'd but about an hun- 
dred years, as I have fhewn in my note upon this 
paflage : thus thefe lait words mull be conftrued 
wirh that of being o\ fojourning^ which is in the 
beginning of the verfej thy feed fjj all be a firanger 
four hundred years^ &c. which was verify'd in the 
abode they made in Canaan and Egypt, Here then 
is a tranfpofiuion fomewhat more harfh, than the 
bare placing the two words of S. John's paflage out 
of their natural order. 

In the Epiftle to the Romans^ thefe laft words 
of the 4^'^ f. of the i^^ chapter, Jefus Chrijl our 
Lord^ fliould be joined to thefe concerning his Son^ 
which are at the beginning of the 5^ f. In the 
firft Epiftle to the Corinthians^ ch. 1. "j^. 3. their 
Lord and ours^ are alfo out of their natural place. 
In the 1 Cor, ch. v. f. ip. we fee a tranfpofition, 
which fmall as it is, has yet given place to an ob- 
fervarion not worthy the Divines who have made 
it : The words of the Text are, God was in Chrift 
reconciling the world to himfelf : The word reconci- 
ling is tranfpos'd from the verb was^ with which it 
mull be conlbued in this manner, God was recon- 
ciling the "world^ that is, God has reconciled the world 
to hmifelf by Jefus Chrift -, this tranfpofition is e- 
videnr, yet for want ot attending to it, many of 
thofc ancient Divines, who out of refpe6t are rty- 
led by the venerable name of Fathers^ reading God 
was in Chrift^ and (lopping there, as if thefe words 
made the fenfe compleat without the word fol- 
lowing, have form'd 'em into a proof of the eflen- 
tial unity of Jefus Chrift with the Father, and to 
fhew that the Divinity of the Father was the fame 
as in the Son, 

C Laflly, 



( lo ) 

Laftly, (for to what purpofe fliotild we multiply 
inftances in fo clear a cafe?) in the 8^^ f. of the 
xvii^^ chap, of the Revelation^ mention is made of 
thofe, whofe names were not written in the hook of 
life from the foundation of the world : Now v/ho is 
there that does not fee thefe words from the foun^ 
dation of the world are tranfpos'd, and that they 
lliould be join'd in this manner to the foregoing 
word, were not written from the foundation of the 
World? Thus then in the Text of the fame Apoftle 
by placing backward the words in heaven before 
that o^ bearing witnefs or record^ (for this word pre- 
cifely anfwers to ih^Xireek phrafe,) our tranflation 
will (land thus> There are three in heaven which bear 
record^ &c. for 'tis thus in reality that this Text is 
quoted in the difpute printed among the works of 
St. Fulgentius^ againft Pint a the Arian\ fres funt in 
icelo qui teftimonium reddunt^ ^c. " There are three 
" in heaven which bear record, i^c. " 

After having thus firil cicar'd up the phrafe of 
the facred Text, we muft come to the fubje6t it 
felf, and enquire narrowly into it. 

I find three forts of herefies which have been 
flartcd one after another againft the facred Trinity,^ 
a fublime truth which has always been a Humbling 
ilone to the pride and haughtinefs of human un- 
derftanding. The firft of thefe herefies was that 
of Prase as in the fecond Century, and pufli'd on 
with yet more vigour by Sahellius in the age fol- 
lowing. It allow'd of the fole perfon of the Fa- 
ther in the Divinity, and reduc'd the Son and Holy 
Gholl; to mere names, or attributes, of the perfon 
of the Father. 

The fecond antitri* arian herefy was that of 
Arius ^ a Century after. This at the firft folely 
terminated in the perfon of the Son, depriving him 
of the degree of perfe6t and eternal equality which 
he has with the Father, in order to place him a 

degree 



( II ) 

degree lower, and leaving him only a fort of re" 
femblance with the perfon of the Father ♦, a God' 
without being God. As to what regards the Holy 
Ghofl-, we don't learn from hiftory that yirius in 
the beginning fell foul upon his divinity, but we 
may well imagine, that his judgment was not more 
found with reference to him than to the perfon of 
the S-^n: what followed foon made it appear j the 
Holy Ghoft was degraded by that herefy of the 
dignity of God 3 they didn't leave him the very 
name ; they made him no more, as I have already 
cbferv'd, than a fort of Angel, created by the Son. 

In thefe lad times Socinus invented a third here- 
fy, which is in a manner made up of the two 
foregoing: It approaches to that of the Sabellians 
in this, that it confounds the Holy Ghofl with 
the perfon of the Father, not allowing the Spirit, 
or Holy Ghoft, to be a perfon^ but merely fpiri- 
tual gifts, which being nam'd in Scripture the Spi- 
rit, or the Holy Gholl, are there in fome fore 
perfonalized^ that is, defcrib'd and reprefented un- 
der the name of Spirit, as if they were a Perfon. 
On the other hand the herefy of Socinus adheres to 
that of Jrius in this^ that it takes away from the 
Son the quality of true God co-ellential with the 
Father, and co-eternal j and makes him no more 
than a titulary God, in virtue of his offices and 
dignity : But Socinus does not pretend that the Son 
had any real exiftence before he was born oi Mary-y 
whereas Jrius^ in part at leaft, keeping more clofe- 
ly to the Texts of the Holy Scripture, which ex- 
prefs the eternity of the Son, left him a part, or 
(hadow of that eternity, by faying that he was 
created of the Father before all Worlds. 

The Text, which I undertake to defend, is 
equally oppofite to all thefe herefies. It ma- 
nifeftly deftroys that of Sahellius , who own'd 
but one Perfon in the Father, the Son, and the 

C z Holy 



( tz ) 

Holy Ghoft, whereas this Text fays there are 
three. 

By the fame number of three thus diflinflly fpc- 
cifyed, at the fame time, the impious boldnefs of 
Socinus is confounded > for as he refolves not to 
own the Holy Ghoft for a Perfon, but only for the 
fpiritual and divine gifts of the eternal Father, 'tis 
then the fame thing as the Father himfelf in thefe 
gifts 'y fo that there remains no more than thefe 
two, the Father and the Son 5 whereas this Text 
of St. John reckons up three. 

The herefy of Jrius admits of all three^ fince it 
acknowledges three pcrfons, but it cannot ihew us 
three witneffes 5 and yet 'tis this the Text clearly 
teaches us. In fhort, if the Son, as y^rius pre- 
tends by reducing him to the number of the crea- 
tures, be only the Minifter of the Father, and the 
Holy Gholl the Minifter of the Father and the 
Son, there will be no more than one witnefs, 
which is the Father 5 for whether he has given 
his witnefs huTifelf immediately, or has caus'd it 
to be given by his Son, and by the Holy Ghoft, 
■tis always himfelf, properly fpeaking, who is the 
witnefs: Now St. John fays three witmffes y in like 
manner as he fays afterward, three that bear record 
in earthy the Spirit^ the Water ^ and the Blood: and 
as chefe laft are not really three witneffes, but be- 
caufe the Teftimony of the one is not compre- 
hended in the teftimony of the other, fo that 'tis 
not the Spirit it felf, which bears record by the 
Water, nor the Water by the Blood 5 in like man- 
ner that they may be three witnefles in Heaven, 
each of thefe three muft be himfelf a witnefs, and 
not all be only one of them, who after having gi- 
ven witnefs himfelfj bears record again by the two 
others. 

Thus thefe two herefies, that of Arius^ which 
for above two hundred years ftir'd up the Eaft, the 

Weft, 



( 13 ) 

Well:, and the South againfl: the Chridfan Faith; 
and the herefy of Socinus^ the fatal ofF-fpring of 
the former, are feparately opposed by thefe words 
of the facred Text, "there are three thnt bear re- 
cord in heaven: But thofe which the Apoftle adds 
at the clofe of the verfe, fall upon all thefc hercfies 
join'd together, and flrike 'em down at one blow: 
ihefe three ^ fays he, are one. The Arian and the 
Socinian would willingly give us up the three^ if 
this number, reduced to one, was not the total o- 
verthrow of their herefy } thus they do all thf-y 
can to fecure themfelves from the (Iroke. By thefs 
extraordinary words, three are one^ the unity of 
nature in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, 
prefents it felf without difficulty to the underlland- 
ing and faith of a Chriftian, which has its nur- 
ture in the facred Scriptures 5 and the whole anci- 
ent Church faw there this adorable unity with the 
fame eyes, that we fee it there now 5 we have proof 
of this in Tertullian^ in St. Cyprian^ in Figilius^ in 
S. Fulgentius^ and in three or four hundred African 
Bifhops, who all acknowifdg'd and ador'd the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as being but one God ; 
and have all faid with St. John^ thefe three are 
one. 

The Greek word of the original, Iv, which is of 
the gender which the Grammarians call the neuter^ 
cannot be explain'd in our language but by the 
word thing., that is, one thing j and this expref- 
fion is fomewhat indeterminate, and does not give 
a diftin6t idea of the particular fubje6t of which it 
is to be underftood^ fo the Greek word ev is alio a 
vague expreffion, the meaning of which depends 
upon the fubjed it is applied to. The Socinian and 
the Arian take an advantage from this general way 
of fpeaking, and by the thing of which St. John 
fays, thefe three are one and the fame things rhey 
ynderftand one and the fame will, one opinion, one 

teitiniony 



( 14 ) 

tcflimony in the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghort. To favour this explication, they defend 
themfelves with fome other Texts of Scripture, 
where the fame word %v denotes this fort of moral 
unity, improperly fo call'd, which is nothing elfe, 
but a fort of agreement of opinions, or rtate, and 
condition, between different perfons. The moil 
expreffive of thefe palTages are taken from the xvii^^ 
chapter of St. John's Gofpel, in which the Pray- 
er of Jefus Chrift to God his Father is recited: 
Holy Father^ fays he recommending to him his 
difciples^ whom he was fhortly to leave behind 
him, keep through thine own name^ thofe whom thou 
haft given nie^ that they may be one.—— Neither 
pray 1 for thefe alone ^ but for them alfo that jh all be- 
lieve on me thro' their word^ that they alfo may be 

one in us. And the glory which thou gave ft me £ 

have given them^ that they may be one, as we are 

one, 'that they may be made perfect in one. In 

all thefe verfes, where the expreflion that they may 
be one^ and we are one^ which is the fame with 
that of the Text in St. John\ Epiftle, returns fo 
often-, it is evident, that 'tis there us'd in two 
different {tvS.t^ in one it fignifies an unity of opi- 
nions^ in oppofiition to all fchifm and diyifion a- 
mong themfelves 5 and in the other it denotes an 
unity of happincfs and glory, after they fhall have 
finifh'd their miniftry in holinefs, that they may be 
made perfect in one. The firft of thefe two fenfes 
only can have been transferr'd by our adverfaries 
upon thefe words of St. John*s Epillle, namely, the 
unity of will, fentiment, and teftimony. 

The Abbat Joachim^ who at the clofe of the 
1 1'^'^ Century feems to have had a defign of intro- 
ducing Jrianifm afrefli, did not fail to refer thefe 
words of Jefus Chrift^ that they may be one^ to 
thofe of the Text of the three witnefles in heaven, 
thefe three are one^ as parallel palTagcs. The mo- 
dern 



( ly ) 

ekrn Avians^ and the Socinians^ their companion^ 
urge the fame conformiry of pafTages in their de- 
fence, and not only make *em their ftrong-hold, 
but 1 may venture to fay, their only one. 

Before 1 lay open the weakncfs of it, I fhall 
make one general remark, the application of which 
will be very cafy to theprefent fubjed:} and this is, 
that in feveral Texts of Scripture one and the fame 
exprellion, or one and the lame phrafcj has diffe- 
rent meanings, according to the different fubjcfts 
they relate to. 1 have given feveral inftances of 
this in the ii^^ chapter of the fecond part of my 
Difcourfe of revealed Religion, at prefenc I will 
content my felf with thefe two. It is faid in the 
vii^^ chapter of the Book of Job^ IVhat is man that 
thou 'vifiteft him ? We read alfo thefe words in the 
viii^^ Pfalm^ but the fenfe is certainly not the fame 
in thefe two places j as is eafily to be feen. 'Tis 
faid in feveral places of the facred Books, that God 
takes away Sins, and that he blots 'em out : The 
fame thmg is alfo faid oijefus Chrift^ that he takes 
away our fins ^ and that he blots ''em out^ or wipes 
''em away, yet this is in very different fenfes : God 
takes 'em away by pardon-, Jefus Chrift takes 'em 
away by expiation, A bare conformity fometimes 
fufficing thus to make ufe of the fame terms upon 
different fubjeds. We have a proof of this ready 
in the paffages of Jefus Chrift' s prayer, which they 
compare with the Text of St. John'^s Epiftle. Will 
any one venture to fay, that in the words oi Jefus 
Chrift^ that they miy be one as we are one^ the ex- 
predion to be one^ which is found there twice to- 
gether, is abfolutely in the fame fenfe, and not 
barely in a fenfe of conformity, and by a fort of 
refemblance? 

1 know very well that the jlrian and Socinian 
would perfuade us that the cafe is thus, in order 
to reduce the unity of the Son with the Father to 

a bare 



(x6) 

a bare unity of will and fentiments, fuch as that 
of the Difciples with each other was, and thus to 
take away from Jefus Chrift that adorable unity, 
by which he is co-ellential with his Father. Thefe 
unhappy hereticks turn all their thoughts this way j 
but to compafs their point they mufl firfl take a- 
way from Jefus Chrift the title of God^ o^ true God^ 
of the great God^ which the Scripture afcribes to 
him J they muft deprive him of the auguft dignity 
of Creator^ and that of God over all, hleffed for e- 
ver^ w^hich the fame Scripture attributes to him. 
Could they indeed fliew that Jefus Chrift is no 
more than merely theMinifter of the eternal Father, 
then truly they might find the unity he has with 
his Father to be no other than that which the Dif- 
ciples had with one another, an unity of fentiments, 
and not an unity of eflence and nature : But when 
will they be able to take away from Jefus Chrift 
all thefe fublime charadters of Divinity ? 

Let us fuppofe for a moment, with ^rius and 
SocimSj that the Son is only a creature of the firffc 
rank, and that the Holy Gholt, as j^rius taught, 
is of an order far inferior to the Son, a Spirit crea- 
ted by him 5 or, as Socinus has imagined, the fpiri- 
tual gifts, perfonaliz'd under the name of Spirit j 
would there be the bare fhadow of good fenfe in 
placing them in company with the perfon of the 
Father, the fovereign and eternal God, fo as to fay, 
that they are one with him, under pretext that they 
had no other Sentiments than he ? 1 Ihould as foon 
chufe to fay it of an Angel, and of one of the glo- 
rifyed Saints, fince this Angel and Saint can have 
110 other will than that of God 5 and yet v/hat 
man will attempt to make them one with God, 
and fay of them, as St. John has faid of the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, thefe three are one ? 
Let 'em own then, that thefe words of the facred 
Text have a fenfe infinitely more profound than 
8 that 



( 17 ) 

that of an unity of fentiments and will, and con* 
fequently that they exprefs that unity of efl'ence 
and nature, which makes the three to be but one 
God. 

*Tis with this pafTage as wich that of the inftitu- 
tion of Baptifm, in the name of the Father^ of the 
Son^ and of the Holy Ghofi. The ancient Fathers, who 
have quoted thefe words againil the jirians^ have 
obfcrvM that it is notfaid, in the names^ in nominibus, 
in the plural -y but in the name^ in nomine^ in the 
lingular^ as defigning an authority common to thefe 
three perfons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghofi i the unity of nature being thus included in 
the unity of Name^ v-^hich is that of God, firxre 
Baprifm is adminiiter'd in the name of God alone. 
As then the Father, the. Son, and the Holy Ghoft 
are joined together in Baptifm under this unity of 
Name, which is no other than the very unity of a 
God, it mud necefTarily be thus in thefe words of 
St. John^ thefe three are one. 

The illudon which is formed in the explication 
of thefe words arifes from the name oiijuitnej/es^ 
which is there given to the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghoitj for from thence they conceive 
that they may terminate in their teftimony, and 
fignify that thefe three are one^ as witneflcs, and 
with regard to the record they have bore. 

But the falfity of this notion may eafily be per- 
ceiv'd by comparing a tellimony with proofs. 
When thefe different proofs of one and the fame 
fad are alledg'd, they will never fay that they are 
one and the fame thing, tho' they all tend to the 
fame purpofe, becaufe the one is not the other. To 
be able then to fay of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Gholl, theje three are one^ from an unity of 
Tellimony, their tellimony mufl neceflarily have 
been but one and the fame; but this is not fadl, 
for the Father has bore witncfs in one manner, the 

D Son 



( i8 ) 

Son In another, and the Holy Ghoil: in another 
alfo 'y fo that they were really three different wit- 
nefles of one and the fame truth. And as the three 
proofs of a fa6l refpe6b the fame fa6b, yet without 
being one and the fame thing-, fo thefe three te- 
jftimonies, that of the Father, that of the Son, and 
that of the Holy Ghoft, do not make thefe three 
"witneflcs to be one, fince their teftimonies are in 
number three, (very diftinft, and not capable of be- 
ing confounded one with another,) tho' they have 
all three reference to the fame fubjed. This is fo 
evidently true, that St. John has exprefs'd himfelf 
in a very different manner, when after having faid 
of the witnefTes in heaven, thefe three are one, he 
came to fpeak of the three witnefles in earth, the 
Spirit, the Water, and the Bloody for he did not 
then go on to fay, thefe three are one^ but chang- 
ing entirely both the idea and expreflion, he has 
faid, thefe three agree in one; becaufe in reality 
thefe three lafl being each of a different nature 
from the other, he could only fay, that they had rela- 
tion to the fame thing. Will they never open 
their eyes to fee fo clear a difference, and difcern 
a truth which is fo evidently difplay'd in the very 
Text o^ St. John? 

From all that I have faid in this and the fore- 
going Chapter, I deduce the confirmation and 
proof of what 1 had proposed to make good, name- 
ly, that 'tis the honour and intcrett of every per- 
fon , who is really orthodox, conftantly to defend 
the genuinencfs of St. John's paflage, againft the 
artifice of the modern hereticks, who ufe their ut- 
moil endeavour to degrade it, or if they cannot do 
chat, at leaft to render it dubious. 



CHAP. 



( »9) 

CHAP. III. 

Of the nature of the proofs on which the 
genuinenefs of the Text of the three wit* 
nejfes in heaven^ the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghoft, muft be eflabli[hed\ and 
of the nullity of thofe^ which are urg'd a- 
gainji it, 

IT would be of no fervice, that thefe words con- 
tain'd the great and fublime notion of the Tri- 
nity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft in one 
only divine nature, if they did not really belong 
to St. John^ and were fraudulently inferted into 
his Epiille, for the fupport of the doftrhie of the 
Trinity. We are therefore now to enquire into 
the nature of the proofs for and again ft the truth 
of this pafTage. 

When the wonderful art of printing Books, 
Avhich till then were all Manufcripts, was found 
out about the middle of the fifteenth Century, 
divers Bibles were printed in feveral Countries froni 
the Manufcripts which were in the hands of all 
the World, and the Text here in difpute was in- 
ferted in the Epiftle of St. John^ in the fame place 
and after the fame manner it has been ever fince. 
No perfon exclaim'd againft thefe imprcflionsi 
they had then the fame MSS. they have now, in 
which this pafTage is wanting, but this was not 
thought of moment agaiqft its being authentick j 
they judged it lo be a mere omi^Iion m thefe MSS. 
a cafe which was not peculiar to this Text 5 no- 
thing on the other hand being more frequent than 
fuch omiflions in written Copies. This folemn ac- 

D 2. quiefcence 



( ^o ) 

quiefcence of all Chriftians in favour of a Text 
which they were accuftom'd to i^ad in the Epi- 
ftle of St. John,^ cannot be validly concradia:ed but 
by ftrong and folid arguments ta prove the Text 
fuppolititious. If we could have recourfe to the o- 
riginal copy of the Epiftle, the matter would fooi> 
be decided, but in all likelihood 'tis now above 
fifteen hundred years fince the original of the Ca- 
nonical Epiftles were loft 5 the tranfcripts which 
have been made from age to age, and the early 
Verfions into the vulgar tongue of the people 
then alive, are fince that time the only means, 'by 
which we can be aflur'd of the truth of fafts of 
this kind. The Books of the New Teftament were 
wrote in the Greek language, and confequently the 
Greek Editions muft have been made from Greek 
MSS. The Latin is the language of the moft anci- 
ent Vcrfion of thefe facred Books j and 'cis thus 
the Latin. Editions muft have been made from the 
Greek. If thofe who publifh'd the ^x^ Greek Edi- 
tions of the Epiftle of St. John^ and who have in- 
ferted this padage in the body of the Text, did 
not place it there but upon the credit of MSS. 
their printed Books muft now have the fame au- 
thority as the MSS. themfelves had formerly. And 
for this authority of the MSS. from which the 
Editions were made, 'tis not neceftary that all the 
reft ftiould be found to agree with them in the 
Text, we are upon> firft, becaufe what may have 
been an omiftion in the one is no proof of its hav- 
ing been an interpolation in the others 5 a thou- 
fand inftances make out the contrary. 2. If the 
Greek MSS. in which this Text is not, are fuch 
as want alfo feveral entire paflages in divers placesj 
which yet are own'd to belong to the facred Textj 
becaufe they are in other MSS. the want of this 
paflage in any MSS. whatever, is not a fufficient 
rcalon to conclude, that it is fuppofititious in the 

Manufcripts 



( ^l ) 

Manufcripts in which it is found, j. The greater 
or fmaller number of MSS. in which this pafiagc 
is not read, cannot invalidate thofe in which it is 
read, no more than twenty or thirty Hiitorians, 
who fhall have wrote an hiftory, fuccellively and in 
divers ages, in which a certain fa6V, tho' of very great 
importance, fhall not be found, but which feven 
or eight other Hiftorians of undoubted credit {hall 
have mentioned, can be alledg'd in proof from a 
mere omifHon of this faft, againfl: the veracity of 
the others, who mention it. 4. If the Gree/. Church 
has own'd as genuine the pafTagc, which is not 
found in this number of Greek MSS. this defc6b 
can be looked on only as a pure omifUon, which 
has palTed from one to another*, or which even 
thro'^ the inadvertency of a tranfcriber has been in- 
troduced into their MSS. Now what is regarded as 
an omidion avails nothing againft a paflage quoted 
and approved j we ihall fee in the fcquel, that it is 
not a fuppofition without ground which 1 here 
make of the judgment of the Greek Church in de- 
fence of the truth of this Text; 1 have elfewhere 
given certain proofs of it; and I fhall yet produce 
others, which I am inclined to think our adverfa- 
ries have not confider'd. 

I have fpoke of the ancient Verfions, which may 
lead us back very near to the time of the Originals 
of the facred Books. I don't think, that any per- 
fon ever attempted to difpute the antiquity of the 
Latin Verfion, call'd the Italkk: 'Tis upon this 
that St. Jerom^orm'd his Verfion or Corredion at the 
clofe of the fourth Century, and it was this which 
the whole Weftern and Southern Church in Eu- 
rope and in jifrkk^ made ufe of from the age in 
which the Apoille St. "John dy'd : If then the Text 
of the three witnefles in heaven be found in a 
Vcrlion fo ancient and authentick, 'tis one of the 
ftrongeft proofs we can have for the Texts being 

genuine 5 



genuine J efpccially If it has been own'd by the an- 
cient P'athers, in the times, and countries, where 
the Italick Verfion was us'd by the Churches : 'tis 
a fa6t which I Ihall undertake to prove in the fol- 
lowing Chapters, and which I hope to fet in a 
new hght, tho' what I have faid in my Diflerta- 
tion has put our adverfaries out of the condition of 
giving any anfwer to it, that has fo much as the ap- 
pearance of reafonj as may be feen in the Exami- 
nation which I have wrote again 0: Mr. Emiyn. 

To return to the Italick Verfion, and the proof 
which we draw thence j I know not how it has 
happen'd, but thofe who difpute the genuineneis 
of St. John's pafiage, urge again (I it the Oriental 
Verfions, the Syriac^ tlie Arahick^ the Coptick^ in 
which this Text is omitted. As the bare name of 
thefe Verfions carries with it a certain air of learn- 
ing and erudition, which is apt to dazzle and lead 
aftray, they fail not to make a great noife about ir, 
and as the Syriac is the moft ancient of all thefe, 
they cry it up in fuch a manner as feems to bring 
it near to the original : they forget that it is de- 
fective in many other important Texts, as well as 
in that of the Epiftle of St. John^ as 1 have fhewn 
in my Diflertation, pag. i66. But the Syriac Ver- 
fion, which they have now, mud not be con- 
founded with that which was made in the firft 
ages 5 the mofi: able perfons in this kind of learn- 
ing are of the fame opinion > and Mr. Simon hini- 
felf thought fo too, fince he owns in his Critical 
Hiftory, that this Verfion is more modern than 
the Latin Verfions, i. <?. than the Italick^ and even 
the Verfion of St. Jerom, Befides this, there are 
two great differences which fet the Syriac Verfion 
far below thefe ancient Verfions > the firil confifts 
in this, that the Syriac Verfion was us'd only by 
fome people in the remoteft part of the Eall, who 
underftood neither Greek nor Latin ^ and confe- 

quently 



( ^3 ) 

quently it was of no great note in the Church j whllft 
on the contrary the Italick Verfion firil, and then 
the vulgate of St. Jerom^ had a progrels thro' all 
the Churches of the Latin World, and were re- 
ceiv'd as Books of great authority. 2. This Ver- 
fion fell under the eyes and pens of the mofl cele- 
brated Fathers of the Church, who have quoted ic 
in their Writings 5 and was alfo the Bible of all 
the Councils of Europe and ^frick. Nothing in 
general could contribute more to the authority of 
this Verfion j as then the Syriac does not come 
near it, the omifTion of the paflage of St. John in 
this Verfion cannot balance the authority of the 
Italick Verfion, and deftroy a Text, which that 
has own'd. What remains is to bring proof of 
thisj and that fhall be the fubjedl: of feveral fol- 
lowing Chapters j for 'tis too copious to be con- 
fined to one. 

C H A P. IV. 

That the Text of the three witnejfes in hea-- 
ven was from the firfl Ages in the Italick 
Verfion^ frov'd from the quotations ofTQi- 
tullian and St. Cyprian. 

IT is not from the MSS. themfelves of the Ita- 
lick Verfion, that we can know w^hethcr fuch 
or fuch a pafilige was in itj thefe MSS. have been 
loft for many ages: Time which confumes every 
thing, and carelefsnefs in preferving them, not on- 
ly in the hands of private perfons, but withal in 
the Libraries of Convents, Princes, and learned 
Men, who were curious in thefe matters, has fo 
ordered it, that not one Copy, as I know of, of 
this famous V^eifion of the NcwTellamenr is now 

extant. 
2 



(H) 

extant. From the time that St. Jerom's gained the 
afcendant over the Jtalick in the Churches, as be- 
ing far more corred than the copies of the for- 
mer were, into which, thro' the fucceffion of 
time, a great number of faults were crept, the 
MSS. of that Verlion were by little and little fuf- 
fer'd to be loft. All that we have of it is in the 
Writings of the Fathers, who have made Commen- 
taries upon fome Books of the New Teftamentj 
or in the quotations of feveral Texts of that ancient 
Verfion, in divers paflages of their Works. 

The moft ancient Book, in which the paflage of 
St. John is quoted , is the Treatife of fertullian a- 
gainft th^ hcretick Praxeas-, it would be impoffi- 
ble to go back to a more remote age, fince Ter- 
tulUan liv'd in the fame age this famous Verfion 
was made, namely, the fecond Century. 1 have 
quoted the paflage, which regards this Text, in 
my Diflertation, and I would not return to it now, 
if I had not new obfervations to make upon it, in 
order to defend it againft the falfe glofles of thofe 
perfons, who alledge that Tertulllan had not the 
paflage of St. John in view, under pretence that 
he has not made an exprefs quotation. 'Tis thtis 
that ancient Do6lor fpeaks in the if^^ chapter a- 
gainft: Praxeas. " Jefus Chrifl fpeaking of the 
" Holy Ghofl: faid. He fiall take of mine^ as him-^ 
*' felf had taken of the Father > and thus the 
'' connexion of the Father with the Son, and of 
" the Son with the Holy Gholl caufes thefe three 
*' to be united together 5 which three are one^ as it 
'' is faid, / and my Father are one, " There we 
fee clearly exprefs'd thelaft words of the paflage in 
St. ^ohn'^ EpilHe, Jh.ee are Om-, in like manner 
as we fee there the very words of Jefus Chrifl in 
the x^^ Chapter of the fame Apofl:le's Gofpel, / 
and the Father are one, I'ertuUian has not been 
content with barely quoting the words of the Epi- 

itie. 



( M ) 

file, Trcs untim fimt^ but he his wirhvl mnde tl^cre 
an obft-rvation, in order rr» jllulh-at;- th^ fi-i^rc, and 
to (hew chat the word U-ium h;is ex«prt^s relation 
to the nature and cHence i^\ t'lc thre<", tlie Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Gh.>(l 5 and not to their 
perfbns, qui tres^ fays he, UNUM funt^ mn UNVS : 
which he confirms by the authority of our Lord 
Jefus Chrijfi^ who exprcfs'd himfclf after the i'lrne 
manner by the word Unum^ ^vA not by that of 
Ufius y when he fpoke of himfclf and his Father, 
quomodo dil^um ej}^ adds TerTullian^ I' go ^ Pater 
UNUM fumus. Can anything be mr«rc exprefs? 
Yet, inilead of (incerely owninr, that this is the 
fcnfe and meaning of Tertullian^ they take what 
pains they can to elude the force of this proof. 
They pretend, that it was of himfclf, and without 
a view to any particular Text of Script iirc, that 
J'trtullian ia;d, qui tres iinum funt^ und-er pretext 
that the words are put there without any lign of 
quotation J as if it was not very common in the 
vritings of the Fathers, and particularly in Tertul- 
lian^ to quote parages of Holy Scripture without 
any indication which marks 'em to be paflagcs 
taken from Scripture 5 they need but open the 
Book of that ancient Do6tor, and numbers of in- 
itances will offer themfelves to their eyes. Was 
then the remark he makrs upon the word uniim^ to 
ihew the great difference bctwixc unum and unus^ 
with a view towards clearing up his own expieilion, 
and not that of a iacred Tcxi ? This is ablurd to ima- 
'gine, and (till more io^ becaufc he hadjull made the 
iajiie obfervation upon the word Unum us'd hy Jefus 
Chrijl in the ii^^ chapter, Ego (J Pater UNUM fa- 
Pius^ I and the Father are O N E. He laid, U- 
NUM fumuSy non UNUS [limns, — U^ium dicit mu- 
trali lerhoy quod non pertir^et ad Jir^galaritaum^ /(d 
ad ur/itatcm. ^^ J'^f^^^ CbrifiiAi^^ 1 and tke Father 
** are one; and this onc m the neuur gender docs 

li. *^ not 



( t6) 

" not imply there was but one perfon in God, 
*' (which was the error of Praxeas^) but it denotes 
*' their unity. " The obfervation then which Ter- 
lullian had juft made upon the difference of unum 
and unus^ to explain the meaning of thefe words 
of the Son of God, I and the Father are one^ he 
here makes upon thefe, Three are one^ and yet they 
will have it, that he had not this Text of the fa- 
cred Scripture in view ! 1 defire every perfon, who 
finccrely feeks after truth, to give heed to this ob- 
fervation. 

A fecond, which terminates in the fame views, 
and will confirm the former, is the agreement of 
this pafTpge o£TertuIIian with that of St. Cyprian in 
his Book of the Unity of the Church. St. Cyprian 
joins together, as two Texts which mutually fup- 
port each other, that of Jefus Chrift^ 1 and the Fa- 
ther are one^ and this of St. John's Epiftle, "Tis 
written of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft^ 
thefe three are one. Why then fhall not the words 
thefe three are one^ join'd in Tertullian with I and 
the Father are one^ and with the fame defign too, 
namely, to prove the plurality of perfons in the 
unity of the divine nature, be the pafTage of St. 
John's Epiftle, as they are in St. Cyprian ? 

To dwell a little longer upon this remark. The 
fame words, I'res unum funt^ '' Three are one," 
are found thus alone, and without the reft of the 
fame Text, in St. Cyprian's Epiftle to Juhaianus\ 
in Vigilius of Tapfum^ m two paftages of his Dif- 
iourfe concerning the 1'rinity j and in the Fragments 
againft Fabian among the works of St. Fulgentius? 
I here quote only the Authors, who have us'd the 
fame Verfion with Tertullian. Now in all thefe 
paflages the words, three are one^ are indifputably 
jnferted as belonging to St. John's Epiftle: and yet 
they fhall not haverbeen in Tertullian's Book ! They 
muft have very ftrong proofs to convince an im- 
partial 



( i7) 

partial mind of it, which {hall have read the fame 
Italick Verfion in thefe different Authors, and have 
found there the fame words. 

This obfervation leads us to a third, with which 
I (hall conclude my reflexions upon 'Tertullian. Let 
'em maintain, as long as they will, that thefc 
words, 'Three are one^ are properly 'Tertullians^ who 
fpoke 'em of his own head, and without having 
taken them from St. John^ upon this fuppofition, that 
they were not in the Latin Verfion of that Apoftle's 
Epiftlej they cannot at lead deny, but that feveral 
of the Ancients, famous for their orthodox belief 
in the facred Trinity, did read 'em in their days in 
the fame Verfion : I have produc'd fo many quota- 
tions of it, to which I fhall prefently join fo many 
others, that this cannot be difputed me 5 whence 
then comes it, that thefe words, Three are one^ fhall 
be found in the Italick Verfion in the age of St. C>'- 
frian^ and the ages following ; and the fame words 
fhall have been us'd by Tertullian^ yet without ha- 
ving been in the Verfion, where the others found 
them ? I believe they will wait long for an anfwer 
to this powerful difficulty, if they cxpe£b an an- 
fwer that removes it : let them examine it, and 
look throughly into its confequences j I defire no 
more. I flop here, and pafs on to St. Cyprian, 

This holy Bifhop o£ Carthage^ who fuffer'd mar- 
tyrdom for the Chriftian Faith in the year 2f8. has 
quoted the pafiage of St. John in two of hisTrea- 
tifes. He produces the lall words in the Epiftle to 
Jiibaianus^ and almoft the entire pafiage in the Book 
of the Unity of the Church ^ and in thefe two 
places he quotesit upon different fubjedls. That of his 
Epiftle to Juhaianus is to fhew the necefiity there 
was of re-baptizing, or rather, as he expreffes 
himfelf in the begmning of that Epiftle, of ha]^- 
tizing thofe, who had received baptifm in the Commu- 
nion of the hereticks, who did not believe the Tri- 

E 1 nity, 



f 18 ) 

niry, becaufe this could not hare been look'd on as 
true Briptifm, fince Baprifm was conferred in the 
Name of the Trinity : He who receives Baptifm^ fays 
he, /V fanHlfyed and becomes the Temple of God-, But 
of what God? Of the Creator? This cannot he^ for he 
does not believe in him. Of Chrifi? But how can he 
he the Temple of Chrifi^ who does not acknowledge 
him to be God ? Is he then the T'emple of the Holy 
Ghofr, fince THESE THREE ARE ONE ? Cum 
ires unum fint. Thefe v/ords then are there quo- 
ted as a proof of the Trinity of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Gholl:, in one only divine cf- 
fence. 

He urges the fame paflage upon quite another de- 
fia;n, and fo^^newhat more at large, in his Difcourfe 
(f the Unily of the Church. He wrote it againlithc 
fchifm of the Novatians \ and he realons there 
llrongly, with that lively and noble eloquence 
which was natural to him, againll the Schifra in 
general, in order to fet out the horrour of it. 'Tis 
there, thar, wfrer having faid, that he cannot have 
God for his Father, who has not the Church for 
his Mother, he adds, the Lord has faidy 1 and the 
Father are one •, and ngain^ it is written of the Fa' 
ther ^ the Son^ and the Holy Qhofi ^ and THESE 
T'HREE ARE ONE. 

All that the enemies to the genuinenefs of this 
pafTage of St. John have been capable of imagining 
to render uielefs the exprefs quotation St. Cyprian 
has made of it, an^iounts to this, that it has refped 
to the 8'^^ verfe, v/here the Apoftlc fpeaking of the 
three witnelTes which are in Earth, the Spirit, the 
Water, and the Blood, fays that thefe three are 
one^ accord ir.g to the Latin Veriion, which has 
tranOated the lad words of the 8^^ verfe, and thofe 
of the 7^^^ in the fame manner, tho' they are very 
different in the Greek^ as I have elfewhere fhewn, 
1 have confuied this illufion with fo much force 

and 



( ^9) 

and bv fuch demonftrative arguments in my Criti- 
cal Differtation, that the oppofite party has been 
at a lofs what anfwer to give, and all that Mr. Em- 
lyn^ who at prefcnc maintains the contrary fide in 
England^ has been able to do, \s to quote St. Eu- 
cherius^ who has faid that feveral explained the 
three witnefTes of the 8^'^ verfe myftically of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl, and then 
to produce Facundus^ who has obfcrv'd, that St. 
Cyprian explained after this myflical manner in his 
Treacife of the Unity of the Church, what is there 
faid of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. 
Buc I have given fuch repulfive ftrokes to thefe 
la 11 efforts of a deplorable caufe, in my Examina- 
tion of that Writer's anfwer, that they have not 
vcntur'd to appear again in the late Piece, he has 
pubiilh'd, under the title of a Reply to the Exami^ 
nation of M. Martin : The Reply has here, as al- 
moit every where elfc, been mute, and pafs'd over 
the proofs and arguments which my Book is full 
of in fiiencc and confufion. I have fhewn under 
this particular article of St. Cyprian^ with how lit- 
tle underftanding or juftice Mr. Emlyn had urg'd 
the words of Sc. Eucherius y and how abfurd ic is 
to make Facundus^ (who out of pure fancy has af- 
crib'd a meaning to him which that ancient Wri- 
ter has not given the lead hint of,) a fupreme 
judge of the fenfe and intention of St. Cyprian j 
which will appear yet more and more from the 
new obfervations I am going to make upon it j for 
I avoid, as much as 1 can, tautology and repeti- 
tion. 

I begin with the ^]^\?ih lo J ubaia72iis : As Fa- 
cundus has made no mention of the pailage of this 
Epiftle which 1 have quoted, with regard to this 
he leaves us the field free, to take the quotation 
which St. Cyprian has there made of thcle words 
of St. Jobn^ "Thefe three are one^ according to the 

fenfc 



( 30 ) 

(enfe and views which they can have there. There 
will be no difficulty in being affur'd, that it is the 
unity of eflence in the Father, the Creator of the 
World i in the Son, whofe Temple no one can be, 
if he is not really God •, and in the Holy Gholl, 
whofe Temples likewife we are, and who is one 
with the Father and the Son. Now what have the 
Spirit^ the Water^ and the Bloody which St. John 
fays are three witnefles in earth, and which are 
reduced to one in this, that they all three bear the 
fame record, in common with thefe r^afonings and 
thefe expreffions? Facundus here fails the So ciman^ 
and Reafon is againd him too. 

Let Us now bring this paflage of the Epiftle to 
Juhaianus^ and that of the Difcourfe concerning 
the Unity of the Church both together. St. Cyprian 
had there the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood of 
the 8^^ verfe no more in view, than in his Epiftle 
to Juhaianus : We fee there only the proper and 
ordinary names of the three divine perfojis, the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft j by what 
means then will they introduce the Spirit under the 
name of Father > the PVater under the name of 
Holy Ghoftj and the Blood under the name of 
Son? Reafon will never envy an imagination, which 
thus abufes ic. We have lately feen in "TertuUian 
the Text of the Gofpel, / and the Father are one^ 
plac'd in conjun6bion with thefe words of St.John^ 
thefe three are one\ we find in the fame manner 
thefe two pafTages join'd together in the quotation 
of St. Cyprian^ why then fhall not this be here the 
three one of the 7^'^ verfe, as it is in Tertullian-^ or 
why fhall not the three are one in Tertullian be the 
three one of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, 
if it is fo in St. Cyprian? 

This reafoning is fo much the more firm and 
Iblid, as St. Cyprian does not add thefe words of 
the EpiUle of St. John^ but in the fame fenfe 

as 



( 31 ) 

as the former, / and my Father are one : Now as 
according to him, and all the Fathers of the 
Church, thefe fignify an unity of nature betwixt 
the Father and the Son, the fime unity mud: be 
exprefs'd in the other pafTage, which is parallel to 
the former, thefe three are one j and confequently 
they cannot, even in the very meaning of St. Cy- 
prian^ be underllood of the Spirit, the Water, and 
the Blood, which far from having this unity of 
nature, are three very different natures. But we 
tarry too long in anfwering an illufion, which has 
not the lead appearance of reality, and in defence 
of which they have not been able to produce one 
reafon, that is taken either from the language of 
St. Cyprian^ or the fubjed of the Treatife in which 
this paffage is read, or from any hypochefis of this 
holy Bilhop which can favour it. Is not this to 
make an Author fay what he has not faid, and which 
cannot even have come into his thoughts ? The 
Text then of the witnefles in heaven was in Ter- 
tullian and St. Cyprian's time in the It alt ckYti don ; 
and we fliall fee it there again in the fucceeding 
ages. 



'mn 



CHAP. V. 

Other proofs that the Text of the witnejfes 
in heaven was in the old Italick Verfion. 

TO the age of St. Cyprian immediately fuc- 
ceeded that, in which St. Jerom flourifh'd. 
The firll Latin\' txdon had already been made three 
hundred years, and in lefs time many faults mull 
have crept into the Copies, which were continual- 
ly difpers'd for the ufe of the Churches and private 
Perfons. 'Twas then a trade to tranfcribe Book?-, 

^^ as 

,4 



( 30 

as it is now to print 'etri. Both learned and ig- 
norant were equally employ'd in writing and co- 
pying : 'twas a means of getting their livelihood -, 
and as tfhey were more or lefs dexterous at ir, 
they made their profit, Every one, who could 
write and read, became his own fcribe for himfelf 
and family 3 no perfon had the infpe£tion of his 
work, or was appointed to make in it the necef- 
fary correftions. Books muft thus often fall into 
bad hands, and be infenfibly fill'd with faults. 
Sometimes an ignorant tranfcriber took one word 
for another, and put that which he underftood in 
the place of that which he did nor. Sometimes, 
wearied with a labour, which requires a continual 
attention, he fuffer'd words to cfcape his eyes and 
his pen, and even Imes, efpecially when the one 
began with the fame words which the other had 
ended with j inftances of thefe oraiflions are very 
common in the ancient MSS. Sometimes a co- 
pier, more bold than learned, made alterations in 
the pailage, where he thought the copy, which he 
tranfcrib'd, was faulty. Thefe were fo many fatal 
fprings from whence iRimbers of faults arofe. St. 
jferom has fpecify'd all thefe fourccs of irregularity 
and defers in his Epiftle to Pope Damafus^ who 
earneiUy exhorted him to make an exad revife of 
the JMSS. of the Gofpels. Tho' this work ap- 
peared to him very toilfome and difficult, bccaule, 
faid he, of the great diveriiry he faw in the Ma- 
rufcripts, and the almoll innumerable faults, which 
had crept into 'em, tho' for the moll part very 
flight, and which did not affed the ejQentials of 
Religion, he yet refolv'd to undertake it. He per- 
formed it with all niiaginable care, comparing fe- 
veral MSS. together, and formmg his corredtions 
upon the Qreek, He did the fame fome time af- 
ter to the other Books of the New Teilamenr, 
which makes him fay in the Catalogue of his works, 

plac'u 



( J3 ) 

plnc'd at tlie end of his Trent ife of EccleHaftical 
Writers, that he had revised the New Tcllamenc 
by the Greek Copies, as he had bet ore done that 
of the Old by the Hebrew. 

The Text of the three witncfies in heaven was \\\ 
the Italick Verfion, as we have feen from the life 
TertuUian and St. Cyprian had made of ir. This Ver- 
fion fell under the eyes of St. "Jerom-y there ihcn he 
faw this facred Text 5 and he fiw it there, either 
as a fault to be corrc6l:td , or as a genuir.e Text. 
If the latter, St. Jerom own'd it to be the Apollle 
St.Jobn'si if the other, he mulf have caft it out 
of the Epiftle in his revifcj but very far from 
having rcjc<5ted it, he kit it there with the Text 
of the three witncOes, which are upon earth, and 
the whole Church has read it there iincc, as it had 
read it there before: I have given indifputable 
proofs of this in my Difiertation, and fhall give 
more in this. I fpeak not here of the Prologue to 
the feven Canonical Epiillcs, in which St. Jerom 
complains of fome particular Verfion, from which 
this Text was taken away, thro' the unfair hfulnefs, 
as he believ'd, of the Authors o^ that V^erficn j 'tis 
a point of Criticifm , upon which I have already 
wrote, and to which I fhall be oblig'd to return, 
in order to remove the difficulty Mr. Ernlyn has 
form'd, and with which he imagines I mud be 
very much perplcx'd. 

Thofe who have read with any care the wri- 
tings of St. Jerom cannot be ignorant, that when 
he has happen'd to deviate in lome places from the 
Italick Verlion, he has mark'd them cut, and given 
his reafons. If it was neceflary to quote inltances, 
I could give feveral, which wiihui concern only 
one word, or fome fuch other inconfiderable alte- 
ration; but this would lead me too far, and carry 
me off too much from my iubjccl : the matter of 
fact IS known, and difputed by no body. If then St. 

F Jerom 



( 34 ) 

Jerom bad infertcd this pafTage of St. John in his 
Verdon without having found it in the Jtalick-y or 
having found it there did not infevt it in his revife, 
for one of thefe two mult neceflarily be fa61:, is it 
to be conceived, that fo exad and careful as he 
was to jullify himfelf upon the fmalleft points, 
againft his envious adverfaries, who fought for an 
occafion to quarrel with his condu6l in relation to 
his Verfion, as he has complain'd in feveral of his 
Epiflles, yet he fliould have negligently forbore to - 
fet down in fome of his works the reafons which 
he had, not to follow the ancient Verfion with 
regard to this Text, which is one of the moft im- 
portant in all the New Teltament? His perfc6i: Ci- 
lence then is a certain mark, that he had nothing 
to fay upon it, no more than upon all the other 
paflages, where he had left things as he found 
them. 

This reafoning is one of thofe which the Philo- 
fophers name a dilemma^ the force of which con- 
fills in an alternative, in which two cafes being 
proposed, you muli chufe to admit of the one, and 
rejed the other. Here then let them take which 
fide they will 5 I matter not; my argument will al- 
ways be convincing. 

But what need is there to urge this reafoning 
from the genius and character of St. Jerom^ when 
we have exprefs proofs of the fact in queltion, 
namely, that in his time the ^nckm Latin Verfion 
contained the paffage of St. John's Epiltle ? St. 
Eucherius liv'd at the fame time with St. Jerom^ 
tho' fomewhat younger than hej the Church had 
then no other Verfion in ufe but the Italkk-y St. 
Jerom's revife, made at Bethkem^ could not yet 
have pafs'd the mountains to be known in France^ 
where St. Eucherius fiourifh'd ni the famous Mo- 
nailcry of Lerins, and afterwards at Lyons^ where 
he was Bifliop. He has quoted in his Trad de 

formulis 



(3J) 

formulis fpiritualihus the two paflages of Sx..John'$ 
Epiftle, which fpcak of the three witnefles in hea- 
ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghofl; 
and of the three witnefles in Earth, the Spirit, the 
Water, and the Blood. One cannot believe how 
much pains Mr. Emlyn has taken to invalidate this 
quotation j but the more he has turn'd about to 
different fides, the more he has fhewn the perple- 
xity he was in, and the difficulty of getting rid 
of it> he himfelf is become fo fenlible of it by the 
anlwers, which I have made to all his objedions, 
that he has prudently thought fit to be filent in 
the affair. One thing, which Teems to have 
given him the mod fatisfa6lion, was an imagina- 
tion, that thepaflage where St. Euchcrius fpeaks of 
the three witneffes of heaven, was falfify'd by 
feme tranfcribers , becaufc, he faid, he did not 
comprehend how that ancient BiHiop could have 
quoted in the fame paflage the Text of the three 
witneffes in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the 
Blood, which were myllically explained of the 
three divine perfons, fince that of the witneffes in 
heaven would have prov'd of it felf, and without 
recourfe to myftical meanings, the Trinity of the 
perfons in the divinity. I have Ihcwn hmi, that 
this was an illulion, which he had form'd from 
imagining that S. Eucheriusc\\iox.^d thefe two paf^ 
fages to prove the dodbrinc of the Trinity 5 and I 
next produced to him two inftances taken from the 
Decretal Epiftles of Iftdorus Mcrcator ^ in which 
thefe two Texts of St. John's Epiltle are quoted 
together, and even wirh regard to this dodrine. 
We have withal a third inltance taken from an 
Author more ancient than the Author of the De- 
cretals > 'tis Figilius Bifhop of Tapfum^ who has 
wrote fo much againft the Arians^ and who has 
urg'd againfl: them the paffage of the witnefles in 
heaven no lefs than five times in divers places o£ 

F i his 



of his DiTcourfe concerning the Trinity. Being at 
Naples^ whither he had rerir'd from Jfrick^ that he 
might continue no longer expos'd to the perfecuti- 
on of the Emperor Hitnerick^ he composed under 
the name of Idacius Clarus^ a famous Biiliop in 
Spain in the preceding age, a Treat ife again ft Va- 
rimadus^ an Arian Deacon, in which he inferts the 
principal objedtions of the Arians againft the Di- 
vinity oijejlis Chrift^ with the anfwers that weic 
to be made to 'em : If they urge againft you^ fays 
he, thefe words of the Son of Godj I'he Father is 
greater than I: Anfiver^ l!he Father is greater than 
the Son confider'd as man^ having taken human na- 
ture upon him \ hut the Son is equal to the Father^ in 
bis divine nature 5 according to what he has faid^ I 
and the Father are one: agreeable to which is that 
which tS*/. John has faid in his Epiftle to the Parthi- 
ans, (for 'tis thus that feveral of the ancients have 
fly I'd this firft Epiftle of St. John) There are three 
that hear record in earthy Sec. and three that hear 
record in heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the Holy 
Ghoft^ Svc. 

From this quotation I draw two advantages ; the 
firft, which is the leaft, is that it finally difcon- 
certs Mr. Emlyn's fc heme againft: the p aft age of 
St. Eucherius'y the fecond, which is far more con« 
iiderable, and is very much to my purpofe, is that 
the Text of the witnsftes in heaven, the Father, 
the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, was in the Italick 
Verfion ; for Vigilius^ and the other writers of his 
age, madeufeofno other. This pious Bifhop liv'din 
the fame age with St. Jerom-^ fortho'hehad already 
gain'd a great reputation tov/ards the clofe of the 
the fourth Century, he pafs'd a good part of his 
life in the fifth > for which reafon he is commonly 
rank'd with the Writers of the fifth Century, with 
St. PaulimSy Rufinus^ St. Auguftine^ and others. 
This remark would not be very impoitant, and 

which 



( 37 ) 

which I fhould never have thought of making, if 
it did not ferve to remove an illufion, which Mr. 
Emlyn has form'd, and which he would be glad 
to realize to impofc it upon others; which is, that 
fays he, Figilius^ Eugenius^ and the other Prelates, 
who have mentioned this Text, came too late, for 
they liv'd in the fifth Century : I have (hewn the 
extravagance of this anfvver, and have met with 
no reply: but to draw an advantage from the re- 
mark I have made upon the age , in which Sr. 
Jerom is rank'd, namely, the fame with that of 
Figilius^ Bifhop of Tapfiim^ and the other j^fri- 
can Prelates, whom I have quoted 3 if the argu- 
ment taken from their bemg of the fifth Century 
renders their depofition ufelefs, what can that of 
St. Jerom^ or that of St. Aiigujiine^ have more, un- 
lefs it derives its authority from the dignity and 
merit of their perfons> which would be the moll 
abfurd thing to urge in the world. Vigilius of 
Tapfum was no lefs religious than St. Augujline^ and 
he had this advantage above him, that he fuffer'd 
great perfecutions \\\Africk^ which had not been 
rais'd there in the time of St. Augujline, St. En- 
genius alio. Primate of the African Churches, and a 
ConfefTor for the Faith, was a perfon of no lefs dig- 
nity than the Bifhop o'^ Hippo ^ and the three or 
four hundred Bifhops who in their profcfiion of 
faith, prefcnted to Hunenc^ defended the dodlrine 
of the Trmity by the Text of St. "John^ There are 
three which bear record in heaven^ 6cc. in the fame 
age with St. Auguftine and St. Jerom^ amounts in 
my opinion to as much as a quotation which fhould 
be found among the works of thofe two excellent 
fervants of God. It feems as if they had a mmd 
to pafs m the world for men who fliut their eyes 
againlf the cleared truths j or who proltitute their 
fincerity, when they make ufe of fuch pitiful tva- 
fions. 



( 38 ) 

In fhort, tho' the times had been far more di- 
llant from each other than thofe of St. Jerom and 
St. Jugtiftme were from that of thefe Afrkayi Bi- 
fhops, the fole life of a man, might yet have feen 
them both: There were but fixty four years from 
St. Jerom to the time thefe Birfiops wrote j and 
fcarce more than fifty two or fifty three from the 
death of St. Auguflim j now does this make it 
worth the while to fay with fcorn, they are wri- 
ters of the fifth Century? If I had been in that 
age, and it had pleas'd God I had liv'd fo long, as 
1 have done in this, I fhould not only have been 
able to fee St. Jerom^ Figilius^ and the re(t, but 
alfo to have exercis'd the facred Miniftry for near 
three years of St. Auguftine's life, and withal in the 
days of the three hundred African Bifliops, who 
drew up that excellent Confeffion of faith, in which 
the paflage of St. John confronts the Arian herefy, 
iince I have had the honour to be a Miniiler f/ 
years, and am now in the eighty firfl year of my kgQ. 
Opinions may change in pafling from one age to 
another \ and in thefe cafes 'tis true one cannot in- 
fer from the prevalence of fuch or fuch an opinion 
in the world in one age, that they had been fo an 
age or two before ; of this we have an hundred 
intiances: but that the quotation of a paflage from 
a Book known, and efteem'd, and which is with- 
al in the hands of all the world, lofes of its weight, 
becaufe of its being made in one age more ancient 
than another, is what no body has ever thought, 
and yet 'tis this which Mr. Emlyn has feveral times 
ventured to afTcrc. 



CHAP. 



( 3P) 



CHAP. VI. 

Containing fome new reflexions upon the Tro- 
fejjion of faitb^ which was prefented to 
Huaeric by the African Bijhops, 

IN fpeaking o^ Figilius B;fhop of 'Tapfum^ and 
the frequent quoiations he has made of the paf- 
fage of St. Johrj^ I have had occafion to place with 
him the three or four hundred Billiops, who had 
inferted this triumphant Text into their Profeflion 
of fairhj I have quoted in my DifTertation, and in 
the Examination of Mr. Emlyn's Anfwer, the place 
which concerns this paflagej he has been able to 
make no reply, fo chat I look upon this matter as 
concluded : but I am here about to conlider it a- 
gain in another Hght. 

It remains indifputably prov'd that all the African 
Bifhops, as well in their own name, as in that of 
their Churches have own'd as a Text of St. John 
that of the witnefles in heaven, which they have 
urg'd in the moll authentick inlbument that per- 
haps was ever drawn up, and in the nicell circum- 
ilances that the Churches of fevern! great Provin- 
ces, and of divers other Countries beyond Sea, fuch 
as the Churches of Majorca ^ Minorca^ Sardinia^ and 
Corfica^ which were in the fame interells with 
thofe of Jfrick were ever found in. It is certain 
then, that this Confellion of faith was ad:ually put 
into the hands of the Avians^ who had their Bibles, 
as the Orthodox had theirs, and were acquainted 
with the Greek tongue, as well as they, and were, 
no lefs than the Orthodox, exercis'd in reading the 
facred Scripture, and in difpute. Laftly, 'tis molt 
fure, that they gave no other anfwer to this Trad 

of 



( 4^ ) 

of the Bifhop than by ftirring up nga in ft them the 
rage of the Emperor Huneric-^ all thefe hdis are 
taken from Hiflory. This fole recital, tho' very 
much abrJdg'd, and deftitute of the reflexions I 
have added to it in my Diflertation, convinces by 
its own evidence, that at that time neither Ortho- 
dox, nor j^rians^ had any doubt but that the paf- 
fage really belong'd to St. John's Epiftle. The yf- 
rians would not have defir'd any thing better than 
to find in an A6b prepared with fo much care, and 
upon which four BJfliops em ploy 'd to draw it up 
had fpent feveral Months, a forg'd pafTage, and e- 
fpecially a paflage, upon which the Orthodox re- 
]ied fo much in the defence of the dodrine of the 
Trinity. Thofe cunning and obilinate hereticks 
knew how to exclaim againft the Ample words 
of iicrioo and oiiAOiic-iQv^ ejjhue and co-effential^ which 
in the Council of A^ice had been appropriated to the 
Confublhntial Divinity of the Son with the Fa- 
ther. Shew us, faid they continually, the words 
effence and co-ejjential in fome Text of Scripture 5 
how then did they not here, where the fubjed is 
of more than one word , and where a whole 
Text is oppos'd to their error, anfwer that the 
Text is not m the Scripture, and that it could not 
be fhewn to be there ? They would have difcern'd 
the mote, and not have fccn the beam ! 

VtgiUus of 'Tapfum entcr'd the lifts againft 'em j 
Si, Fulgenticds aUo had with them divers difputesj 
the pallage of St. John was ui g'd by them both : 
We find in all thefc djfputes the anfwers and the 
arguments of the Avians upon divers Texts of Scri- 
pture: nothing appears upon this, which looks like 
the rcjedling it as forg'd. 

When any paftagts are brought againft them, 
upon which they can urge the difference of Copies, 
they never fail to make ufe of this plea: this may 
be ieen in the cafe of Rom. viu. f, 11. in the fe- 

cond 



('4^ ) 

cond Vol. of St. Athanafius's works, p. 228. and 
upon another palTage in the fame Volume, pag 610. 
but we meet with nothing like this upon the Text 
of St. John's Epiftlc. 

Their whole anfwer to all the paflages urg'd 
againft them out of the Epillle to the Hebrews in 
defence of our Saviour Jefus ChrlB's Divinity j 
which is there exprefs'd in fo many places, is that 
this Epiftle is not Canonical : Tbe Avians^ fays Mr. 
Simon^ were the firfl in the Eaflern Churchy who oh* 
Jinately rejected the Epijile to the Hebrews^ feeing it 
was not favourable to their new opinions. Urge a- 
gainft them the Text of Sr. John's Epiftle! They 
alledge nothing againft its being authentick, nor 
charge it with forgery. 

How then, fays Mr. Emlyn in his late Trafl:, 
pag. 4f . do they fay nothing, and fufFer themfelves 
to fall by a Text, which gives vidory to their ad- 
verfaries, without making the leaft defence? Thofe, 
fays he, who have urg'd this pafTage, muft have 
either necefllirily fupprefs'd the anfwers of the Ari^ 
ans^ or they are loit, fince they are not come 
down to us. As to their being loft, 'tis impoftible, 
fince as they muft have been join'd to the objedi- 
on, and the objection is by different ways come 
down to us in the Writings of the Fathers, the 
anfwers could not fail of coming in like manner. 
Nor did even Mr. Emlyn think fo-, he ufes this di^ 
lemma in his reafoning only to manage a little the 
oppofite queftion, and not too inconfiderately to 
affcrt that the ancient Fathers had fupprefs'd the 
anfwers of their adverlaries. If he meant to fay 
this, he may find certain perfons who out of pre- 
judice and diflike to the Writings of the Fathers 
will not difallow of it j but natural equity join'd 
to good fenfe, which ought every where to prefide, 

I Hift. des verit. du Texte de N. Teftam. ch. xvi. 

G can 



(4^) 



can never approve of a fufpicion fo injurious to the 
ecclefiaftical Writers, who have recommended them- 
felves fo many different ways, and to which their 
manner of relating the difputes which they had 
with the hereticks, has given no place. So far 
from thisy that we every where find the paiTages 
of Scripture, that fcem mofl favourable to Aria- 
nifm^ fet in their fulleft light, and urg'd with all 
the force that was poffible to the Avians. We fee 
there the moft fubtle and artful reafonings that the 
Arians^ and their fellow-brethren the Socinians^ arc 
able to form at prefent, fomerimes againll the My- 
fiery of the Trinity 3 fometimes againll the Divinity 
and eternal generation of the Son 5 and fometimes 
againll the proceflion of the Holy Ghofl, and the 
Divinity of his Perfon. Confult but what they 
have faid upon the 22^ f. of the viii^^ Chapter of 
the Proverbs againll the eternity of the Son: The 
Lord has created me^ &c. relying upon the tranfla* 
tion of the lxx. who have thus rendered it in- 
flead of, 1'he Lord has pojfejfed me^ &c. as the 
Hehreiv Text imports: Upon the ^i'^ f. of the 
xiii*^ Chapter of St. Mark^ in order to deprive Jifus 
Chrift of his infinite knowledge. But of that day 
knowethmman^no not the Son^ 6cc. Upon the ip*^^. 
of the x^^ Chapter of St. John^ to take oif from the 
fupreme dignity of the Son, by thefe words which 
he had faid himfelfj My Father is greater than L 
The Fathers withal have not been forgetful to give 
us inftances of their artfulnefs in eludmg the Texts 
of Scriptur,e urg'd againll them % feveral are feen in 
what] have pioduc'd above j I Ihall add but one 
more, that I may not too much multiply things of 
this nature. The Orthodox made ufe of the 1 exr, 
where Jefus Chrift fays, / and my Father are one^ to 
prove his unity of nature with the Father, as be- 
ing but one and the fame God. The Arians cva- 
<^Qd^ or pretended to evade this proof by the di- 

itin(5i:ion 



( 43 ) 

flin61:ion of unity of nature, and unity of will, ex- 
plaining thefe words o'i Jcfus Chrifi of the latter; 
and it was necefTary for the Divines of thofe times 
to ftrengthen themfelves with other Texts in de- 
fence o\ that. We muft: not imagine that thefe 
fubtle j^rians did not urge the flime anfwer to the 
padiige of St. John's Epiltle, fince xh^ three are one of 
this Text is the fame thing with thefe words o^Jefus 
Chrift^ I and the Father are one. This is manifeflly 
the fum of the feventh Dialogue o^Figilius oiTap- 
fum^ printed among the Works of St. Athanafms^ 
Vol. 2. of the Cologn Edition: where he fays, thar 
where the names of the perfons are exprefs'd, there 
they believe different natures to be exprefs'd by 
thofe names ; fo that they adjgn to the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghoft an unity of will only, and not an 
unity of divine nature: And it was alfo after this 
manner, that the Abbat Joachim^ who reviv'd Ari^ 
anifm^ explained the Text of St. John's Epiftle in 
the 11*^ Century i as we fee in the A(5ls of thj^ 
QouncW oi Later an ^ held in 12 if. 

But tho* we were not fo well fatisfy'd as we are 
concerning the anfwer which the Arians may have 
given to this paflage, what advantage cou'd accrue 
to Mr. Emlyn^ or what confequence could he 
draw thence? Our quellion turns only upon this, 
whether, thefe words of St. John's EpilUe, For 
there are three ^ ivbo bear record in heaven ^ the Fa^ 
ther^ the IFord^ and the Holy Ghoji j and thefe three 
are one^ were in the old Italick Verfion, and were 
urg'd by the Fathers againlt the Arians \ I prove 
it by abundance of authorities j and there is noc 
one which they can difpute, either as falfely al- 



b Sic fentiunt, ut ubi nomina in perfonis indicant, ibi i;- 
mul in ipfis nominibus & fingulas vel di^erfas fubftantias effs 
pronuntiant, ut unitatem in concordia tantum charitatis effc 
alTignant, & non in unita plenirudine Divmic^tis. 

G a ledg'd, 



r 44 ) 

ledg'd, or as uncertain > but would it be lefs true, 
that the paflages extraded from the writings of 
the Fathers, which I have prodiic'd, are in their 
Books, tho' we Ihould be wholly ignorant of what 
the Arians may have anfwer'd ? 1 am n^t acquaint- 
ed with Mr. Emlyn's Logick, but no man was ever 
lefs regular in fixing his principles, and drawing 
his confequences : 1 have made this remark m ano- 
ther place. 

C H A P. VII. 

Other quotations of the Italick Verfion in fa- 
vour of the pajfage in St. John'^ Epijile^ 
taken from two ancient TraSis, afcrib'd to 
St. Fulgentius, 

ST. Fulgent ius^ Bifliop of Rufpe in Africk^ liv'd 
in thofe forrowful times, when jirianifm was 
upon the throne, and true Chrillianiry very much 
perfccuted. I have ^ fet down in my Diflertation 
two pafTages where this holy Bifhop makes men- 
tion of the pallage of St. John.^ but as I have not 
given the exprefs words, I think it convenient to 
give 'em here. 

The firft of thefe paflages, which is in his An- 
fwers to ten Obje6tions of the Avians^ is exprefs'd 
in thefe terms : ^ H^e acknowledge the unity of efr 
fence in the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft\ 
yet without confounding the perfom j for Uis this which 
St. John tefiifieSj when he fays^ There are three which 
hear record tn heaven^ the Father^ the iVord^ and 
the Holy Ghofl^ and thefe three are one. The other 
pafTage is in a Difcpurfe, which he wrote cori- 
^1 ,1 I I III " " . ■ - .. I I , 1 II I ■ 

f Pa.g. 6u "'"" d Fulg. Rufp. ad lo. Ob.ed. 

cerning 



(45 ) 

cerning the Trinity at the requeft of one of his 
friends, nam'd Felix^ to explain to him that great 
fubjedt, which was fo much difputed. *= I will /ay 
then to you in few ivords^ that the Father is one^ 
the Son another^ and the Holy Ghoft another-^ di- 
ftindi I fzy^ as to their perfons •, but not diftin6l as to 
their nature : and for this reafon 'tis faidy I and the 
Father are one: the word ONE refpe^s the nature^ 
the term ARE denotes the perfons •, in like manner^ 
^tis faidy T'here are three^ which bear record in hea* 
ven^ the Father^ the Word and the Holy Ghojl^ and 
ihefe three are one. 

After fuch exprefs quotations of St. 'John\ paf- 
fage, let 'em come and boldly tell us it was not in 
the Italick Verfion, or that St. Fulgentius had not 
this Verfion, which was received in all the Churches, 
before his eyes, nor took thence the pafTages he 
quoted in his Writings j this will be an unpardon- 
able ignorance in thofe perfons who thro' preju- 
dice deny a truth which is difagreeable to themj 
or a want of fincerity, yet worle than that igno- 
rance, fliameful in men who profeis themfelves 
Scholars. 

In the lafl: Editions of this holy Bifhop's Works, 
and in the ninth Volume of the Bibliotheca Nova 
Patrum^ we find two Tradls under the name of 
Sc. Fulgentius, The one is againll: an jirian Bi- 
fhop nam'd Pinta j and the other is a collection of 
divers Fragments againft an Arian alfo, nam'd Fa-f 
hian. 

As to the former Mr. Bu Pins in the article of 
St. Fulgentius^ proves that this Work does not be- 
long to that famous Billiop, and he gives very 
good reafons, which if they plcafe they may fee 
in the place I have mentioned. Dr. Cave in his 
hiftory is of the fame opinion, and 1 know no per- 
t i ■ I I- , - ^^^^^^^ 

f Fulg. de Trinit. ad Felicem Nptariqm, cap. iv, 
L.. ... ^^^ 



( 40 

fon who has fliffly maintained the contrary. 'Tfs 
at lead true, that this Tra6t is very ancient. The 
Author, who drew it up, quotes there feveral Texts 
of the facred Scripture in defence of the Trinity, 
after which he fets down this: In the Epifile of 
St. John, fhere are three in heaven^ which bear re^ 
cord^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Spirit-, and 
thefe three are one. 

As to the colledion of the Fragments of tea 
Books, which St. Fulgent ius had written, as the 
Author of his Life fays, againd the falfe accufati* 
ons of Fabian^ F. Chifflet^ a Jefuic, who publifh'd 
'em upon the credit of fome MSB. does not doubt, 
but that they really are the Fragments, which fome 
one had coUefted from the Work of St. Fulgentius, 
I have no concern to engage my feif in this point 
of Criticifm : but I will venture to fay, that I find 
in fome oF thefe Fragments fuch thmgs, as \x\ my 
opinion, fuit not with the charader and genius ofc 
this learned African. In the third fragment of the 
iSrfl Book we fee remarks upon the Greek ^ un- 
worthy the great skill St, Fulgentius had in that 
language i and a diftin61:ion betwixt the Latin words 
minifirare znd fubmifiijir are <, which does not agree 
with fuch a man, as he was. I leave the ftrider 
enquiry into thefe matters to thofe who are Cri- 
ticks by profeffion ; ^ fhall here infill no longer 
upon it. Yet K 1 have done right in not con- 
foundmg die Author of thefe Fragments with St. 
Fulgentius^ no more than with the Author of the 
Tra61: againlt Pinta^ the quotation of St. John's 
paflage in thefe Fragments, wherein the Texts of 
Scripture are all taken from the Italick Verfion, will 
be a new proof that this Text was read in that 
Verfion. 

The title of the 21^^ Fragment of the fixth Book 
is, I'be Trinity in Perfons^ and the Unity in Nature 
po'Cd from holy Scripture -^ under this extraordinary 

title 



( 47 ) 

title are read ttiefc words at the clofe of the Chap- 
ter, 'The Apoftle St. John has evidently faid\ and 
three are one^ in fpeakmg of the Father^ the Son^ and 
the Holy Ghojl : this is exprefs. 

Upon occafion of the manner, after which this 
paflage is quoted, I return to the quotation St. Cy* 
prian has made in his Treat ife of the Unity of the 
Church J It is written^ fays he, of the Father^ of 
the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofl ; and thefe three are 
one, 1 fee here no difference with the quotation 
of the Fragment i in the latter, 'tis indifputably the 
7'** f. fince it can only be faid of that verfe, St. 
John has evidently faid-y the confequence tends di- 
redly to St. Cyprian^ and confirms the reflexions I 
have made upon him. 

If thofe, who venture to deny the pafTage wc arc 
upon to have been in the Italick Verfion, have 
never read the Authors I have quoted, their igno- 
rance in a matter, they ought to be acquainted 
with before they fo refolutely deny it as they do, 
is inexcufable in Men of learning > and if they have 
read 'em, and taken notice of the paflages in 'em I 
have quoted, their fincerity becomes very much 
fufpedled : this is a grievous dilemma for 'em. 



CHAP. viir. 

Of the judgment St. Jerom has made of this 
Texty in his Trologue to the feven CathO" 
lick Epjiles. 

5 T^ I S impoffible but that St. Jerom muft have 
A feen in the Italick Verfion a Text which 7>r- 
tullian and St. Cyprian had read there before him, 
and which all the world had feen there as well as 
they, and which the great numbers of Bifhops who 

liv'd 



( 48 ) 

iiv'd in the fame age with St. Jerom read there at^ 
fo. The toilfome and difficult pains he gave him- 
felf to purge that Verfion from the faults, which 
had crept into it, did not allow him to fpare a 
Text, which would have been the greateft of all 
the faults he had to correft, if it did not really be- 
long to St. John's Epiftle j but far from taking it 
away, he on the contrary has complain'd in very 
ilrong terms, in his Prologue to the feven Epiftles, 
of the omiffion of this Text in fome private Ver- 
Hon, which appear'd in his time •, the Authors of 
which he treats as unfaithful Tranjlators : a reproach 
unjuft as well as rarfi, if this pallage had not been 
in the Italick Verfion, which was ufed by the 
whole Church > and if withal it was not in the 
Greek of the New Teftamcnt, lince it was from the 
Greeks as from the Original, that the Latin Ver- 
fions were made. 

Thefe confequences are natural, and 'tis impof- 
fible CO overturn 'em, but by deftroying the princi- 
ple from which they proceed, which is abfolutely 
to deny that this Prologue is Si.Jerom's, And thus 
Mr. Simon has bent his whole force this way with a 
view to exclude the paflage it treats of, as a forg'd 
and fuppolititious Text : Dr. Mill and F. Martianay 
have gone into the fame opinion concerning the 
Prologue, but yet with different views, for they 
believ'd the paflage of St. John genuine} their pre- 
judice reach'd no farther than the Prologue. I have 
colleded from the Writings of each all the rea- 
fons they have urg'd to fhew that St. Jerom is not 
the Author : I have examin'd 'em ftep by ftep one 
after another, and have fhewn 'em to be fo weak, 
that ^ Mr. Emlyn who has twice enter'd the lifts 



* See the fifth Chapter of fwy Dijfertation upon the pajfage 
cfSK John, and the fourth Chapter of ths Examin, of Mr, 
Emlyn',j Anfwer. 

fincc 



( 49 ) 

fince upon thefe matters, he has not been able to 
deftroy one of my arguments. 

The moll fpecious of thole which had beenurg'd 
againft this Preface, was that the fcvcn Epifties are 
there call'd Canonical^ a name which F. Martiana}\ 
who is the Author of this remark, pretends was 
not given to thefe Epiftles , 'till after the fixth 
Century, and confequently that it could not be St. 
Jerom^ who wrote the Preface, where they are 
caird by this name. This reafon would be good, 
if the remark wasjull, but 1 have (hewn from fe- 
veral Authors, that it is not : I lliall not offend, if 
I here add two other inftances. The firft is from 
Figilius^ Bifhop of Tapfum in the fifth Century, 
who in his Book ^ig-ixwiX Farimadus fays, 'J/j writ- 
ten in the Canonical Epiftles^ my little children^ this 
is the laft time : the quotation is from the firft Epi- 
Itle of St. John. The other inftance is taken from 
St. Jerom himfelf, who in an Epiftle to Paul^ Mar- 
cellus^ and Enjiochium , the fame Euftochium to 
whom the Prologue is addrcfs'd, fays to 'em, Jiide 
the Apojile and Brother of James had [aid in his Ca- 
nonical Epiftle^ (s'c, F. Martianay^ who has read fo 
often over the works of St. Jerom^ of which he has 
given us a mod beautiful Edition, and adorned them 
with the mofl: Jeafn'd Prefaces which have appear'd, 
would be much furpriz'd, was he alive, to fee his 
Criticifm upon the word Canonical^ confuted by 
St. Jerom himfelt^ but the moft learned men are 
fubjedb to fuch mi Hakes. 

Tho' it be a main point for thofe Gentlemen 
who difpute the Text of the witnefTes in heaven to 
be genume^ to take from it the fuffrage of St. Je- 
rom in the Prologue here in quellion, yet Mr. Em- 
lyn will not anfwer for the reafons which have been 
urg'd againlt this Prologue, and he does not find 
'em ilrong enough for him to keep clofe behind fo 

ti weak 



( JO ) 

weak, a bulwark j Mr. Martin^ ^ fays he, may he 
one of thofe PFriters^ who are fare to defend what o- 
thers ha've fald upon a fuhjeSl in debate -y hut for my 
part^ I undertake to defend that enly^ which I think 
fvaVid and conclufive. Let us pafs by what he fays 
of me, he doiVt know me: let us dwell upon what 
he tells us of his own turn of genius > I undertake^ 
fays hey /^ defend that only ^ which I think 'caVid and con- 
clufive. He might at this rate have fpar'd himfelf 
the trouble of writing his two laft pieces in order 
to defend what others had faid before him againft 
the paitage of St. John\ he in this had lefs con- 
fulted his ftrength than his inclination, which has 
carried him to enter into an engagement which he 
"would have done well not to have meddled with} 
he gets no honour by it. But whence is it, that 
after having engaged fo deeply in it, he gives up 
all the proofs urg'd againft a Preface, which, if it 
fubfifts, is the total ruine of his fide of the quellion ? 
It is, he fays-, becaufe he docs not undertake to de- 
fend reafons which do not appear to him folid and 
conclufive : fuch a confeflion does not make much 
for their honour, and makes much for me," who have 
had the fame opinion of it before him. Yet you 
niufl; not believe that he entirely abandons the dif- 
pute j he has one iliifc left which appears to him fe- 
cure, and with which alone he thinks to triumph. 
If St. Jerom^ fays he, was the Author of this Pro- 
logue, in which the palTage that fpeaks of the three 
wicnefles in heaven is chara6leriz'd as the principal 
fupport of the faith , and the omiilion of this paflage 
in fome Verfions mark'd with the odious name of 
tinfaitbfulneis, would it be pofTiblc after this that St. 
^JcrQ7n fhould have never produc'd fo terrible a paf- 
fage againlt the Arians^ when he oppofed 'em in 

» Ke^h, pag. 37. 

his 



( 5^ ) 

li is Writings f I had largely anrvver'd this, and a- 
tnongft other things had laid, that this obje6lion 
fuppofed this holy Doftor to have wrote fome 
particular Treatife againll Arianifm : whereas there 
is no fuch piece found atrjong all the great Vo- 
lumes we have of his ; and that he had but fcarce 
touched upon it as it came in his way in fome of 
his Commentaries. Mr. Emlyn returns to me upoa 
this fubje6l, and contents himfelf with alledging in 
general the Comment upon Ezekiel^ without mark- 
ing any paOage where Arianifm is mention'd. This 
vague and confus'd manner of quoting a Book has 
its profit and advantages for thofe who judge that 
it is more fecure to lurk behind this general form 
of fpeaking, than to appear in a diilinft and exprefs 
quotation. 1 have read St. Jerom's Commentary 
upon £2;i?^/>/ more than once, and have found him fo 
far from exprefHy engaging again ll^r/^/^i/A/;, that he 
fpeaks not of the Holy Trinity but upon occafion 
of the myftical expofition of fome expreflions, 
which are found in this Prophet > and the paflages 
which he quotes, tho' rarely, are always fuch 
whofe ideas have relation to thofe of the myHical 
terms and explications he gives, and which are of- 
ten far fetched: inlknces of this obfervation may 
be feen in the xi^'^ Chapter, f. i . in the xl^^ Chap- 
ter, f. 44. and in divers other places. 

To this I add, that a very confiderable time 
having pafs'd betwixt the Prologue and the Com- 
mentary upon Ezekiel^ 'tis by no means furprizing 
that St. Jerom not being concern'd in the lealt with 
the affair of Arianifm^ fhould not have prefent in 
his mind a Text of which he had fpoke with (o 
much force upon a quite different occafion, as that 
of the revife of St. John's Epiille was. He was 
working upon this revife about the year 389 or 
390 i for giving in the year 39^5 (which he notes 
to be the 14^^' year of the reign of Thcodofius) a 

H z Catalogue 



( jO 

Catalogue of his Works, he fets down in the num- 
ber the review of the New Teftament: now he 
did not finifh, as is gathered from his Works, his 
Commentary upon EzekieruW the year 414, and 
confequently 24 or if years after he drew up the 
Prologue to the fcven Epiftles. Will Mr. Ewly^ 
find that after Co long a fpace of time St. Jerom 
mull have prefent in his mind the noble vivacity with 
which he had fpoke of the Text of the witnefTcs 
in heaven againft the unfaithful Tranflators, who 
had not inferted it in their Verfion, that this Text 
mufl; have plac'd it felf under his pen, and be ne- 
cefTarily repeated there? If he thinks fo, thofe who 
know mankind better, and how men of thegreat- 
cfl parts do not always think upon the fame thing, 
how the mofl judicious content themfelves with 
faying or writing what is moft to their purpofe, 
and how 24 or 2f years time are capable of fixing 
the mind to one thing, without prejudice to that 
which made a lively impreffion upon it 24 years 
before, will not find the lead difficulty in com- 
prehending, how 'tis poflible that St. Jerorn^ after 
all the reafons I have given, fhould not have quo- 
ted the pafTage of St. jfo/m^ of which he had fpoke 
with fo much zeal and force in the Prologue to the 
Canonical Epiftles. 

Mr. Emlyn carries his reafoning yet one ftep 
higher, and to give it the greater advantage, he re- 
prefents the Author of the Prologue as taking upon 
him the Charader of Reflorer and Pre fewer of this 
pafTage, againft the omiflion wnich he condemns 
in {om^ Latin Verfionsj from whence Mx, Emlyn 
infers, that thefe charafters cannot belong to Sti 
Jerom^ fince he has made no inention of this Text 
in his Commentaries, nor in his Epiftles. 

The Author of the Prologue does not give him- 
felf the great titles of Reftorer and Preferver^ not 
sreprefents himfelf under any of thefe ideas 5 'tis 

from' 



(53 ) 



from himfelf Mr. Emlyn has taken them. The 
word and idea of Reftorer would reach much far- 
ther than to chofe particular Verfions, which arc 
rpecify'd in the Prologue, and which, as we learn 
from St. Auguftine^ were almoll of no confiderati^ 
on in comparifon of the Italick^ which was caird 
the Common Verfion^ becaufe as I have feveral times 
obferv'd, it was that of all the Churches : and the 
paflage of St. John not being wanting in this Ver- 
Hon, which was in the hands of all the world, the 
name of Refiorer of this Text could not belong 
to the Cenfurer of thofe other obfcure Verfions, 
which at moft were only in the hands of fome pri- 
vate perfons. I fay the fame thing of the word 
Preferver^ which is no lefs a ftranger to this Pre- 
face than the other. The Text in hand had no 
need of any other Preferver than the original Greek^ 
and the Bible of the Churches. 

But has Mr. Emlyn well confider'd that in mak- 
ing the Author of this Preface, whoever he was, 
fince he will have him not to be St. Jerom^ fpeak 
thus of himfelf, he makes him fay by a neceflary 
confequence, that this Text was in the Greek^ and 
in the ancient Editions^ for how otherwife would he 
have been the Preferver of it .^ And will Mr. Emlyn 
acknowledge this? He is taken^ as faid the Royal 
Prophet, in the net which he had laid. 3ut whilll 
he extricates himfelf out of it as well as he can, let 
us refume his reafoning, and draw an advantage from 
it in favour of the truth I maintain. The Author 
of the Prologue charges the Tranflators with un- 
faithfulnefs, who had not inferted this pafTage in 
their tranflation^ therefore he mull himl'clf have 
plac'd it in hisj for the Latin Poets obfcrvation 
Was always juft, 

Turfe eH do^ori (um culpa r:darguit ipfnra. 

'Tii 



( 54) 

^^is fiameful for a man to reprove others , and fall 
himfelf into the fame fault he blamei in them. But 
this is what St. Je^om cannot be charg'd with, if 
this pafTage was pkc'd in his Verfion, which thefe 
unfaithful ^ranflators had not inferted in theirs. 
Now this paflage was no lefs in St. Jerom's Ver- 
iion than in the Itaiick-, 'tis a fa6t which confifts 
in proof 5 1 have given a great number in my Dif- 
fei ration, and I fhall refume and continue that fub- 
je6t in the following Chapter. 

CHAP. IX. 

That the Text of the three witneffes^ the Fa- 
ther^ the Wordy and the Holy Ghoft, and 
thefe three are one^ was always in St. Je^ 
tom's Verfio7t, 

MR. Emlyn does not deny but this Text has 
been in the Manufcripts of the Latin Bibles 
fince the time of Charles the Great^ who liv'd at 
the clofe of the eighth Century j the teftimonies I 
have produc'd have not left him the lead room to 
difpute it. But how could fo remarkable a Text 
as this, both in its matter and form, be found in 
the Manufcripts of the New Teftamcnt, difpers'd 
through all Countries among the Clergy and the 
People ? 

If it was a Stranger, newly come, it mud: be 
own*d they were very eafy who admitted it into the 
Sanduary of the facred Scriptures, without having 
given it any oppofition in any countrey of the 
world. Thefe Manufcript Bibles were feveral times 
revis'd, the fmallell errors of tranfchbers were cor- 
reft ed as much as pofTible, and yet they mnft have 
ihewn fo exceffive an indulgence to this entire Text, 

lately 



( n) 

lately introduced, as to leave it in pofTeflion of a 
place it had (o undefcrvedly ufurp'd ! Does Mr. 
Emlyn really believe this? 

1 went back yet farther than the time in which 
the famous revife was made by the order o^ Charles 
the Great ^ wherein we have fcen this Text of St. 
John-y there's no artifice and Criticifm, which can 
evade this revife j 'tis beyond all the fubterfuges * 
which prejudice and error can raife againfl it j I 
have fet it beyond the reach of both, as may be 
feen from what I have faid. 

Pafling farther than the time of this famous re- 
vife, I fearched into the Decretal Epiilles of Iftdo- 
rus Mercator^ and 1 /hew'd that the two Texts of 
St. John^ one of which fpeaks of the three wit- 
neHes in heaven, and the other of the three wit- 
neffes on earth, were read m two of thefe Epiftles. 
The Bible of St. Jerom was then only in common 
ufe with the Church and its Doctors > this Bible 
had then the pafTige of the 7^^ f, which is that 
of the witneflcs in heaven. 

As Germany furm{h'd me with this very certain 
proof in the Writings of Mercator-, Italy affords me 
a like one in the Commentary of a learned Abbat in 
the Kingdom o^ Naples -^ this is Jmbrofe Jnthhert^ 
or Anshert^ whofe words I have quoted, and which 
I am willing to repeat here, becaufe of the new 
obfervations I have to make upon 'em. Anshert 
then commenting upon thefe words in the firft Chap- 
ter of the Revelation^ the faithful witnefs^ and the 
firfl-begotten of the dead^ and the prince of the Kings 
of the earthy fays, that tho' the exprellion oi faiths 
ful witnefs has there reference only to Jefus ChriH^ 
'tis yet a chara6ter, which equally belongs to the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholij according 
to thefe words of St. John^ There are three^ which 
bear record in heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the 
Holy Ghoii j and thefe three are one. The remarks 

i have 



( yO 

i have to make upon this quotation deferve a par- 
ticular attention. 

Amhrofe Anshert^ a native of Provence^ retir'd in- 
to the Kingdom of iW/>/^/, and was there very much 
cfteem'd : he wrote there feveral Works which 
gain'd him a great reputation withal tho' they 
drew upon him the envy of many. They accus'd 
him of pride, rafhnefs, and in a manner of impiety^ 
for having attempted to write a Commentary up- 
on the Revelation^ to the great contempt, they 
cry'd, of that terrible Sentence in the xxii^ Chapter^ 
If any man Jh all add unto thefe things^ God Jh all add 
unto bim the plagues that are written in this Book, 
It was eafy for Anshert to fhew this accufation ri- 
diculous 5 but as his innocence was not a buckler 
ftrong enough to defend him againft his enemies^ 
he implor'd the protection of Pope Stephen , to 
whom he dedicated his Commentaries. Would a 
man fo unjuftly defam'd in publick , and fo rafhly 
accus'd of making additions to the Book of the Re^ 
velation^ under pretence of the explications he gave 
of it, would he have unadvifedly quoted in this 
very Commentary a paflage, which had not been 
in the Bible, and faid, it is written^ 'There are three^ 
ijuhich hear record^ 6cc. if it had not been written ? 
Now it was St, Jerom's Bible which was then read 
in the Churches, and which private families had 
before their eyes. The old ^ Italick Verfion had 
given place to this, which was far more correft, as 
I have already obferv'd > and this alteration of the 
Verfion had been introduc'd into the Church but 
about a Century, or a Century and an half, before : 
the Jtalick Veriion had kept its ground 'till to- 
wards the clofe of the feventh Century, and Am- 
hrofe Ansbert wrote about the middle of the fol- 

i P. Simon Hift. Critic des Verfions du N, Teftanio ch. vii. 

lowing-- 



Idwihg. We cannot then have a greater certainty 
of the faft in quellion, namely, that the Text of 
the witneflcs in heaven, the Father, the Word, 
and the Holy Ghoft, (^c. were from the firfl: ages, 
as in the Age of Charles the Great^ in St. Jervrn'^ 
Bible. 

Another inflance, very like the former, and of 
the fame Century, is that of Etherius^ Bifhop of 
JJxame in Spaiyi^ and of Beatus Pricft in the y^Jlu- 
rias. ElipanZus Archbifhop o{ Toledo^ and Pelix Bi- 
fhop of VrgeJ^ taught that 'Jefus Chr'ifi confider'd as 
man was only the Son of God by adoption, and thus 
they llruck at the hypollatick union of the two 
natures in Jcfus Chrih : their do6lrine prevailed 
mightily in Spain out of regard to thefe two Pre- 
lates, whofe reputation there was confiderable, e- 
fpecially ElipanduSy who was Primate of all Spain. 
Etherius^ tho' his Suffragan, and Beatus^ who was 
but a bare Priefl, wrote againft: the error of the 
Archbifhop 5 and the Archbifhop in his turn writes 
a Letter of Spirit againfl: 'em, to an Abbat, call'd 
Fidelis^ in which he charges 'em with being Euty^ 
chians. To jultify thcmfelves, and at the fame 
time to oppofe the Error of Elipandus and Felix^ 
they wrote a Book, in which they quoted a good 
part of the firll Epillle of St. John j and among 
the reft the entire paifage of the fifth Chapter, 
which fpeaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghoft. 

It was already a great undertaking in Etherius 
and Beatus to venture openly to oppofe their Arch- 
bifhop and Primate 5 and it would have been not 
only an imprudence in 'em, but impious withal, to 
blend a forg'd palfage among the genuine Texts 
of St. John's Epiftle, and thus to corrupt the fa- 
cred Scripture, if this paflage had not been gene- 
rally in the Bibles of thofe times. This mult ne- 
eefiarily have brought upon 'em the cenfure of 

1 their 



( 58 ) 

their Superior, t\^ho was already but too much 
provok'd at their boldnefs in oppofing his dodrine 
with fuch open force; they, who according to the 
ordinary courfe of Subordination fhould have re- 
gulated their fentiments by his. The conclufion 
is, and this a very certain conclufion, that the re- 
cord of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, 
dne God in three perfons, was really in St. Jerom's 
Verfionj which was all I had to prove. 

Now wherein are thefe proofs defedlive ? We are 
upon a fa61:, and a fa6t which muft have been pub- 
lick, expos'd to the eyes of the whole Church, 
and we have feen in this Chapter the teftimonies 
from Germany in the Works of Ifidorus Mercator ; 
teftimonies from Italy in the Writings of ^mbrofe 
jimherty teftimonies from Spain and the Aflur'ias 
in the Book of Ether ius and Beat us. All thefe te- 
flimonies exadly agree, they all depofe that the 
Text of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft 
was in the Epiftle of St. John •, and all thefe four 
witneftes report it as having read it, and reading it in 
the Verfion of St. Jerom^ without any perfon, even 
their greateft enemies, accufing 'em of a falfe tranf- 
lation : and yet nine hundred years after there fhall 
be found men who will venture to aftert that thefe 
words were not in St. Jerom's Bible ! A little more 
equity, but efpecially more candour, would fub- 
mit to the genuinenefs of this Text. 



CHAP, 



( 59 ) 

CHAP. X. 

JVhat judgment muft be pafsd upon the Latin 
Manujcripts of the Vulgate of St. Jerom, 
which have not the Text of the Father^ the 
Sony and the Holy GhoH. 

WERE we fo happy as to have the Manu- 
fcripts of the Bible which had pafs'd under 
St. Jerom's eyes, or only the Manufcripts which had 
been made very near the time that ancient Cler- 
gyman was upon his revifc, we might clear up very 
many palTages, which have given place for feveral 
Criticifms. We fliould fee whether the paflage 
they difpute with us was originally in that Verfion. 
But all the Manufcripts which are preferv'd fall 
far {hort of the time when it was made, the mod 
ancient fcarce come within four or five hundred 
years of itj fince F. k Long reckons for the molt 
ancient that of T'heodulphus^ made in the year jpo. 
and confequenily more modern by haU a Century 
than the quotation o^ jimhrofe Anther t. But lup^ 
pofe they (hould find, if they will, fome other yet 
more ancient, let it be a thoufand years old, and 
the Text of St. >/;//'s EpilUe not read in it> will 
this be any more than an omiflion, o. fault of the 
tranfcriber, like many others of the fame nature? 
The more ancient this fhall have been, the more 
it may have been copied by others fince, in which 
the fame fault ihall have cfcap'd thro* the inadver- 
tency of the tianfcribers: as we have often fcen 
the faults of an impreiTion to pafs from one edi- 
tion to another, in the very prmting ot the facrcd 
Books, where the revifers and correctors of the 
prels ought to ufe all poffible care to prevent fucfi 

I 2 tiiilUkes. 



( ^o ) 

miftakcs. The helps of Correflors, which are fix'd 
in every Printing- houfc, being wanting to the ge- 
nerality of tranfcrihers, the faults which efcap^d 
their pen remained in their Manufcriprs j this Ma- 
nufcript came into the hands of the buver, who 
fometin^es was a man lefs careful in reading, than 
in forming a Library f(jr pornp and fhew ; no- 
thing is more frequent in the world than this, and 
we muft not imagine that it was ever otherwife. 
When fuch a Manufcript met with a buyer who 
us'd it, and read it for devotion^ he might either 
not perceive the omiflion, or leave it there with- 
out giving himfclf the trouble to correal it-, either 
becaufe he could not write, (for that art was not 
always fo common as it is in our days j) or if he 
could, thro' negligence in corrc61:ing it } or be- 
caufe of an overcurious niccnefs he was afraid of 
fpoiling the beauty of his Book. There are at pre- 
fent men of all thefe Characters, the negligent, 
the indolent, and the afft6i:edly neat 5 and men 
who liv-'d a thoufand years ago were form'd no o- 
therwife than thofe who have come after 'em. The 
omiflions thus remaining in one Manufcript which 
has been preferv'd for manyages, of what weight can 
this Manufcript and others of the fame fort be in 
a matter which ows its firfk origmal to the care- 
lefsnefs of a tranfcriber, and which is preferv'd on- 
ly by a like carclefsnefs, or ignorance, or the la- 
zinefs and negligence of the perfons into whofe 
hands it fhall have pafs'd fu cceffiv ely ? It even 
happens, that when fuch an omiiTion is grown old 
in a Manufcript, the ages which have pafs'd up-^ 
on it without making any alteration in it, have 
gain'd it on the otner hand a fort of venerable 
prefcription i fo that the older a Manufcript is, 
the more venerable it grows, even 'till the very 
faults of it fametimes hold the plac^ of law and de- 
termination. 

Whep 



(^t ) 

When a tranfcriber looking over his copy hap-p 
pen'd to obferve fomething forgot, if he was a man 
who had the perfedion of the Text of the (acred 
Author more at heart, than the ncatnefs or beauty 
of his iManufcript, he himfclf infertcd the paflage 
he had omitted in the margin 5 and this is what Mr. 
Simon and others have obferv'd concerning the paf- 
fiige of St. John^ that not being in the very Body of 
the Epiftle, 'tis found written in the margin, by the 
fame hand, and with the fame ink as the reft. In 
other Mi^nufcripts where this Text is not in the 
body of the Epiftle, fome of ihofe who had pof- 
fefs'd this copy from that time, or a little after, 
having perceiv'd that the Text of the three wit- 
neffes in heaven was wanting to it, had wrote it ii> 
the margin over againft the place where it ought to 
have been. 

All thefe wife and pious precautions, as well of 
the tranfcribers of the facred Scripture, as of the 
buyers, or religious readers, are {o many condem- 
nations brought againfl: the other Manufcripts in 
which this paTage is found wanting i and are a cer- 
tain proof that this defedb mult be look'd on but 
as a mere omiffion, and confequently as a matter, 
which is of no confideration againll the authen* 
ticknefs of this Text. 

This reafoning, which is fo evident and natural, 
and lets us fee of how little moment it is with re- 
gard to the paflage we are upon, that it is not 
found in fome Manufcripts of feven or eight hun- 
dred years old, and which are very fewj this rea- 
foning, I fay, is confirm'd and render'd infupcra- 
ble by the quotations, which I have produced in 
the foregoing Chapter. The Authors of 'cm were not 
mere tranfcribers, tranfcribers unknown, who got 
their bread by writing, as Printos do now-a-dayst 
they are men of letters, and for the moft part of a 

venerablq 



(dt ) 



venerable character in the Church, learned Di- 
vines who wrote upon religious Subjefts, who had 
the Bible at hand, and who, in the fame age, (from 
which they offer us fome Manufcripts unknown 
otherwife than from iheir (ingle quality of Manu- 
fcripts in which this palTage of St. John is not 
found,) come to us by their Works, each with his 
Bible, and upon opening 'em lay before our Eyes 
in the Epiftle of St. John the Text they have quo- 
ted. *Tis then with regard to this Text quite as 
much, as if we had their very Copy, as it is with 
regard to all the other paOages, which arefet down 
in their quotations. 1 fee there five of the mod 
ancient Manufcripts they have, 1 know from what 
hand they come to mt\ thofc from whom I re- 
ceive 'em alTure me by the ufe they have made of 
the pafTagein St.yfj/^/^'sEpiille, that it really belongs 
to the Epidie of that Apollle. Have they the 
fame afTurance of any Manufcripts in which this 
paflage is not feen j and is there the leaft compa- 
rifon to be made betwixt the one and the other? 

They will be confirmed in this thought, if, pla- 
cing on one fide the few Manufcripts in which 
this Text is wanting with the innumerable multi- 
tude of thofe which have it, (fince they are forc'd 
to own that within thefe feven or eight hundred 
years 'tis generally found in the Manufcripts) they 
attend to the regard which was anciently paid to 
one and the other. If before the eighth Century 
there were fome Copies in which this pafisge of 
St. John was wanting, they mufl necefiarily have 
been but little known in publick 5 or if they were, 
they gave themfeive^ no more trouble about 'em, 
than we do now about the faults of a printed 
Book, and even of the Bible j all that is done in 
this refpcd is to avoid the fame faults in another 
Edition. And 'tis thus the Ancients were \vonttoa6t 

in 



( ^3 ) 



in what concerns the paOage of Sr. John\ the fault 
or omifllon remain'd where ir was, and chey Cook 
care not to let it pafs into other Copies. 

They went farther, when, at the clofe of the 
eighth Century, they made by order o^ Char lei the 
Great that excellent revifc of the Copies of the 
New Tedament, of which fo much havS been laid. 
The learned men who were chofcn co make a judg- 
ment of the Copies and the faults to be corre6ted, 
either met with none of thcfe Manufcripts which 
wanted this palTage, (which would be a fign of 
their fcarcenefs,) or if they had fonxe of 'em be- 
fore their eyes, among the great number of others 
which were neceflliry to their ^t'[\gx\^ thev plac'd 
the omidion of this Text among the faults that were 
to be corrededj otherwife, one cannot conceive 
why they lliould have plac'd it themfelves in the 
Epiftle of St. John^ as has been proved. Unlefs 
they had diredly explained themfelves againft the 
omiffion of this Text, they could not better make 
it known to be a fault of the tranfcribers, than by 
following themfelves the quite oppofite Manu- 
fcripts, and inferting from them this forgotten 
Text. This was all that belonged to their delign, 
and the nature of their work 5 critical remarks up- 
on particular Texts, whether they were omitted in 
fome Copies, or were found faulty in fome of their 
cxpreflions, would have gone too far, and not have 
been necedary for the ufe of che faithful, which 
is what Charles the Great had folely propofed : a 
good revife, and an exa6t and faithful corredion ; 
that was all. 

They adted no otherwife in the CorreElorium of 
the Sorhonne^ in the tenth Century. Always the 
Manufcripts in which the Text of the three wic- 
nelTes in heaven was not, were rejeded, as dcfedive 
in this point i and the only ones in which it is 
found were followed in thefe Corre^oria. \i then 

ihey 



( ^A ) 

they had no regard to the Copies, which liavc not 
this facred Text, upon the occasions of a regular 
corrc61:ion, what eileem do they deferve Cix or fe- 
ven hundred years after, unlefs an error is chang'd 
into truth by traft of time? 

Laflly , the conftant and univerfal ufe the 
Church has made of the Verfion and Copies in 
which this Text was read, without having ever 
gainfayM thofe, in which it was not found, is the 
moll certain approbation they can have of the for- 
mer, and an indifputable difowning of the latter. 
Let thefe Manufcripts make, as much as they will, 
one of the curiofities in Libraries j they may be 
valuable in other refpefts, but the efleem mull ne- 
ver be extended fo far as to their faults. 



The End of the Firjt Tart. 




Part 



Part the Second- 

In which, the pafTage of St. Johi ■ Ej idle. 
There are three in heaven^ 8cc. is prov'd 
to be genuine from the Greek Copies, and 
the ufe of the Greek Church. 




CHAP. I. 

That the two ancient Larin Verjions ^ the 
Irahck and the Vulgate of St. Jci om, are a 
f roof that the di/puted ^ajfage was in the 
Greek Copies. 

H E Italick Verfion being the moft anci- 
ent of all thofe of the Ntw Teftamcnt, 
it can have been made only from the 
Greek: 'tis a fad: of which no peifon has 
ever doubted, and which Mr. Simon Ipeaking of 
this Verfion in his Critical Hifloiy has own'd. Yen 
this is not to fay, that this Verfion, how ancient 
foever it may have been, had not its faults-, there 
is none exempt, and that is a good one which has 
the fewcft. But thefe faults, which moil: frequent- 
ly proceed either from a certam wcarincfs the mind 
contra6i:s in a long and difficult woik j or trom a 
want of a thorough acquanitancc with the lull 
meaning of certain words in the origuval language, 
and fometimes even with the words oi the lan- 
guage into which the tranflation is made, that are 
molt proper to the fubjcdj thclc hiults, 1 fuy, tho* 
they were in the Italkk Verfion, were not carried 

K fo 



( ^o 



fo far as to cut off a Text which was in the Greeks 
nor to infert one which was not thei;e. This would 
have been a moft audacious crime, and which 
thofe pious tranllators, who in thofe firft ages made 
aVerlion defign'd for the inftru^tion of the Church, 
could not have been guilty of 

The Text of the 7^^ verfe o? the v^^ Chapter of 
the firft Epiftle of St. John was inferted in that 
Verfionj it was read there from the firft agts> 
TertuUian^ St. Cyprian^ Figilius^ St. Fulgent ius^ and 
the others who have quoted it from this Verfion, 
underll:ood the Greek 5 the laft cfpeciaily was skili'd 
in it, as we read in his Life, prefix'd before his 
Work« : what^oom is there left after all this to 
doubt whether this Text was in the Greek ? To 
doubt of ic with any fort of grounds, they muft 
be able to deny that this Verfion was made from 
the Greek y and who will deny it? or they muft be 
able to prove, that it was fo unfaithful as to have 
inferred for Texts of Scripture whole paflages, 
which never were there, and which no body had 
read there •, but how can they prove fo odious an 
imputation, and which none of the Chriftians and 
Dodors of the remote ages has ever charged upon 
a Verfion fo venerable? Or laftly, they muft be a- 
ble to advance that none of thofe who have taken 
the paftage of St. John from this Verfion was ca- 
pable of comparing it with the Greek^ or that if 
they were capable, they had neither the zeal, nor 
the care to do it : but for a man to afcribe fuch 
fentiments to 'em, would be to expofe himfelf to 
the derifion of all the world. Nothing then would 
remain but abfolutely to deny, that the Text we 
fpeak of was in the Italick Verfion > but can they 
deny this after the proofs I have given of it? The' 
there fhould be now extant in our days one or 
more ancient Manufcripts of that Verfion, and the 
paflkge Qi^i,John be read in 'em, could they fee 

it 



{67 ) 

it there better than thofe famous Authors did, who 
have copied it from thence? And would the report 
of the Learned among the moderns, who fliould 
declare this paffage to be in thofe ancient Copies, 
deferve more credit with us, than the tellimonics 
which have been by the 'Tertullians^ the Cyprians^ 
the Figilius'Sy the Ful^entius's^ and the three or 
four hundred African B'.ihops^ Since then none of 
thefe things I have mention'd can be denied, they 
ean't but own, that this firft proportion, which 
is infepiirably connedted with all the reft, namely, 
that the Text of St. John was in the Greek^ is by 
this very means put beyond all contradidion. 

I fay the fame thing with regard to St. 'Jerom\ 
Verfion, and the proof of it is more eafily to be 
given. We have no need to fuppofe that St. Je* 
rom was well-skill'd in the Greek Tongue, no per- 
fon ever difputed it ; no more have we need to 
fuppofe that in revifing the Italick Verfion of the 
New Teftamenr, he not only chofe the mod: cor- 
re6t and moil exa61: Manufcripts, but that he had 
alfo the the Greek Copies in his hand, in order to 
regulate his corredions by thofe Copies : He has 
himfelf declar'd that he foUow'd this method > 
Novum Tc ft amentum^ 3 fays he, Gr^ae fidei reddidi. 
" I have corre6l:ed the Verfion of the New Te- 
*^ (lament exadly after the Greek Copies." Tho' 
he had not faid ic, 'tis feen enough from the abun- 
dance of remarks he has made m his Commenta- 
ries. He had found in the Verfion, which he re- 
vifed in order to make it more correct, the paf- 
fage of the Epillle of St. John-y and if in compa- 
ring the Verfion of that Epillie with the Greek^ he 
had feen that it difFer'd from the Greek in what re- 
gards this Text, is it conceivable that he would 
have left it there, and that induflrious, as he was, 



5 De Scriptor. Ecclefiail:. . 

K 1 to 



( 6^ ) 

to make alterations in many places, which may 
feem flight, he would have lee pafs in his Verfion 
fo manifefl: a depravation of the original Text of 
that Epiftle ? The abfurdity is palpable > he faw 
then this pafTage in the Greek^ as he found it in 
the Latin. 

The error which oppofes it felftothe truth of 
this Text neceflarily yields to the force of this rca- 
ibn, unlefs it extricates it felf by the helpofano- 
the error, boldly and confidently aflcrted j and this 
is to deny that Si.Jerom has inferred this pafTage 
in his Verfion. But how can they maintain this 
after the teflimonies which I have brought to the 
contrary? The Romijh Cenfors fay in their Preface 
to Clement the Eigth's B'ble, as reported by ^ Mr. 
Simon^ that fince nine hundred years all the Au- 
thors who have flounfh'd in the Church, have on- 
ly made ufe of St. Jerom's Verlion j 'tis then from 
them, and the quotations of that Verfion which 
are found in their Books, that we may be inform- 
ed with mofl certainty of what was read in that 
Verlion > and the certainty which will arife with 
relation to any particular paflage, will be far greater, 
and beyond all doubt, if this pafTage is found quo- 
ted by feveral of thefe famous Doctors. We have 
here all this, as 1 have fhewn in the ninth Chap- 
ter of the firll Part j and thefe Authors are ex- 
prefTiy of the fame age the Romijh Cenfors fpeak 
of. Thefe Authors are fome of above eight hun- 
dred years, and others above nine hundred and near 
a thoufand. This fad being thus prov'd, and this 
lafl refuge taken away from thofe, who declaim 
againfl the genuinenefs of this pafTage, they will 
be forc'd to own that St. Jerom mult have found 
it in the Greek^ becaufe for upwards of nine hun- 



t» HiH. Criciq. qcs Verf. du N. Teftamcnt. ch. vii. p. 75. 

dred 



dred years the mod celebrated Writers have fhewn 
us, that they read it in St. Jerom's Bible. 

I had briefly touch'd upon this reafoning drawn 
from the ancient I.ati?i Verfions in my ^ firfl Dil- 
fertation, to Hiew that the Text of the witnefTes in 
heaven, which was always read in thefe Verfions, 
mufl: neceiliirily have been found in the Greek. The 
iliortnefs I us*d in my explication fhou'd not have 
hinder'd Mr. Emlyn from taking notice of it and 
anfwering it j but he has thought good not to 
meddle with it. As I have now been as large upon 
this proof, as it defervcs, its force will be better 
percciv'd > and I queftion whether any anfwer can 
be given to it, that will fatisfy a pcrfon, who 
feeks after truth and folidity. 

CHAP. II. 

Of the fir ft Greek Editions , in tsohich the 
Text of the three witneffes in heaven is 
read^ and of thofe in which this Text is 
not inferted, 

BEfore I come to fpeak of the Greek Manu- 
fcripts which fcrve to defend the truth of 
the paflage of St. John^ I think it will not be a- 
mifs to make fome obfervations upon the firft 
Greek Editions of the New Teftament with relati- 
on to this famous Text. 

The Latin Bibles were the firfl that were print- 
ed, about the middle of the if^'^ Century > the 
little ufe which was then made of the Grf^-^ Tongue 
in reading the holy Scripture, was without doubt 

' Diflert. fur le 7. if, du ch. v. de la i Ep. dc S. Jean 
p. 94. 

the 
i 



(70) 

the caufe, why they made no hafl:e to print it in 
that language. It was not till the beginning of 
the 1 6^^^ Century, that Cardinal Ximenes having 
form'd the great and noble defign of printing a 
Bible in feveral languages, colleded with immenfe 
care and charge all the Manufcripts he could find 
for this purpoie, and committed the examination 
to feveral learned men, who were employed in that 
Edition. That of the New Teitament was finifli- 
ed, not as Mr. Simon has faid thro' millake in if if. 
biit in If 14. the lo^'^ day of January^ ^ as 'tis fet 
down in the very Edition, which was made at Com- 
plutum. 

The paHage of St. John is in this Greek Edition, 
which is the firft that was made, and which was 
made from Manufcripts > but it did not appear in 
the world 'till fome years after, by reafon of feve- 
ral accidents, which interven'd at that time, and 
are nothing to our fubjedl. 

During this delay of the publication of the Po- 
lygott Bible of Ximenes^ known by the name of 
the Complutenfian^ from Complutum the place where 
it was printed, Erafmus having got together four 
or five Greek Manufcripts of the New Teftament, 
put out an Edition at Baftl in if i(S. The paflage 
of St. John's Epiftle was not in this Editiom 

In the year if 18. the Greek New Teftament 
was printed at Venice \ in which alfo they have not 
put the pafTage of St. John 5 this is the Edition 
that goes under the name of Aldus. 

That o^ Erafmus in if 16. was reprinted in if 19. 
without any alteration \ at leail with refped to this 
paflage. 

He pubHfh'd a third in ifzz. in which this Text 
was reilored. 

Robert Stephens having gather'd together from 



^ F. le Long. Bibl. Sacr. Tom. i. pag. 13. 

the 



(71 ) 

the Library of King Francis the Firft, and divers 
other places, feveral Greek Manufcripcs, put out in 
If 4(5. a very fine Edition of the New Teftamenc 
v/ith the palTage of St. John's Epiftlc, fuch as we 
have it in the common Editions 3 he put out a fe- 
cond in 15*49. from this firft. 

By this exa6t account of the firft Greek Editions 
of the New Teftament, we fee thofe which were 
made from Manufcripts which had the Text of 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft in the 
Epiftle of St. John j and thofe where it was want- 
ing. 

As both had been taken from Manufcripts all 
thofe which have fince been fent abroad, were co- 
pied from thefe firft Editions. 

I know but three which have folio w'd that of 
jlldiis^ and the two firft of Erafmus in what re- 
gards the omiflion of this paftage in difpute> that 
of Haguenan m i^-zi. that of Strasburg in if 14. 
and that of Simon Colinaus at Paris in if 34. all 
the reft of the fame age, and fince that time have 
regularly followed the former, which read the paf- 
fage of St. John : there's not a tranilation even to 
the German Verfion of the New Teftament made 
by the Socinians^ and printed at Racovia in 1630. 
which has not preferv'd this paiTiige. 

The fmall vogue which the Edition of Aldus^ 
and that of Erajmus in if 16. had in this refped, 
is an evident mark of the difapprobation of the 
Chriftian World. They look'd upon 'cm as ^ Edi- 
tions defedive in this point, which did not deferve 
to have any regard paid to 'em, nor that any ad- 
vantage ihould be drawn thence againft the other 
Editions, in which the Text of the witneftes in 
heaven were found. Yet thofe who believe the 
Text fuppofititious pretend this to be of force a- 



Synopf. Burmanni lib. i. 33. 

gainft 



(7^ ) 

gainft its being authentick ^ but its not difficult 
to fhew 'em that they arc under a miftake. Mr. 
Simon himfelf, that Mr. Simon who has rais'd the 
ilandaid fo high againft this facred Text, ihall 
fpeak for me, and fupply me with the arguments I 
fhall ufe. Let us hear him explain himlclf upon 
the fubjecl: of thefe Editions. I don't believe^ ^ lays 
he, that either that of Strasbourg in i f 24. or that of 
Simon Cohna^us at Paris in if 54. 'were taken from 
Manufcripts, Wolfius, njoho fuhliflj'd that of Straf- 
bourg, fays nothing of it in his Preface ^ he there 
witnejjes^ on the contrary^ that he only reprinted in 
new cbiraSlers and in a new form what had already 
been printed. Simon CoHnxus has put no Preface 
he fore his Greek Edition^ which makes me believe 
that he adjufled it according to his own fenfe from the 
foregoing Editions. All the pretended authority of 
thele Editions cannot be more expreflly made void, 
and the proof which men, either of little under- 
ilanding, or great prejudice, would draw thence 
againd the Text of the holy Apoftlc. Mr. Simon 
fends us back to the ManufcriptSj they alone hold 
the place of the Original in the Editions 5 and 
thofe which want this fupport are but Copies, of 
nO authority in themfelvcs. Thus he brings us 
back, as at one ftep, to the firll Editions, which 
were copied by Wolfius^ and Simon Coiimeus > let 
lis then go back with him fo far as to them. 

Being thus come to the firil Edition of Erafmus 
in If 1(5. and that o^ Aldus in if 18. our buiinefs 
will be to fee from what Manufcripts they were 
both made, h^ to that of Aldus^ we know no- 
thing \M all about it > and tho' I do not doubt but 
that he hr.d fome Mai.ufcfipts from which he print- 
ed the Epiltle of St. John without the Text of 
the witnelfes in heaven, nevertheleis as we do not 



"^ Hift. du Tcxte du N. Tcfiam. ch. xviii. 

know 



(73 ) 



know whether he had feveral fuch, and whether 
what he had was of any efteem or no, his Edition 
can be of no great weight in what concerns the 
omillion of this Text. 

The cafe is not the fame with the Edition of 
Erafmns > he informs us that he had four or five 
Manufcripts, but whether they were very ancient 
or no, is not known j there's but one, which he 
fays a friend of his fent him an extrad of from 
Rome^ that is known to be ancient. 

Let us now compare thefe Manufcripts in which 
the paflage of St. John is found to be wanting, with 
the other from which the Editions, of Complu- 
tum^ that of Erafmus in i^iz. and that o^ Robert 
Stephens in if46. which have all this Verfe, were 
made. I here touch upon what regards thefe Ma- 
nufcripts only by the by, and fo far as the way of 
comparifon requires > 1 fhall have occafion prcfent- 
ly to fpeak of 'em more at large. We know that 
Cardinal Ximenes had abundance of Manufcripts, 
and the bed that he could find 5 and that thefe 
Manufcripts were put into the hands of able men, 
who examin'd 'em with care: Nothing like this 
can be faid in favour of the Edition oi Jldui 5 and 
as to that of Erafmus^ there were but few, and ic 
cannot enter into competition with the three Edi- 
tions of Complutum , of Erafmus himfelf in i fiz, 
and R, Stephen's in if 46. either with regard to the 
number of Manufcripts taken all together, fince 
they all agree in having this Textj or with regard 
to their antiquity, of which Stephens fays, fpeak- 
ing of thofe from which he made his Edition, that 
they were of the molt venerable antiquity 3 codices 
tia5lus aliquot ipfe vetu/iatis fpecie pene adorandos. 

Here again let us hear Mr. Simon j " JVe muft 
judge of the readings of the Manufcripts according to 



■ Hift. du Texte Grec du N. Tettam. ch. xxix. p. 351, 

L the 



( 74 ) 

the rules of Criticif?n^ and fee ^ with Hilary the Dea- 
con^ which of thefe Copies are fupporied by reafon^ 
hi ft or y^ and authority : the Greek where thefe three 
things fljall meet^ will he the moft ancient and the 
moji correct •, whether it be found in old ManufcriptSy 
or in printed Books, 

The Editions of Complutum , of Erafmus^ and 
Stephens have vifibly thefe three advantages above 
thofe of If i6 and if i8. which have not the Text 
of St. John •, the reafon taken from the end and de- 
fign of the Epiftle, as well as the connexion of 
this verfe with the following, favours the Text of 
the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghofl: in one only divine^eflence. The hi (lory of 
the quotations of this paflage is entirely for its 
being genuine > and the authority of the Authors 
v^ho have quoted it is equally veneriible for their 
antiquity, and their great name in the Church. 
Can any thing like this be produced in favour of 
the Editions , in which this palTage is omitted ? 
Let thofe Editions then pafs for nothing fo far as 
concerns the omillion of this Text. 

The fame arguments will alfo ferve for the Sy- 
jiac Verfion, which they fay is the only one of 
the Oriental Verfions, that was taken from the 
Greek : if it is true, as they pretend, that it was 
made from the Greek^ and that the Manufcripts 
from which it was made had not this Text, it 
was a defed and an omifiion, fince it appears from 
the proofs drawn from ecclefiaftical Authors, more 
ancient than the Syriac Verfion, that it was in the 
Italick^ and with it fell under the eyes of the 
whole Church : and if it was not wanting in the 
Manufcripts, 'tis an omifiion which mufl be laid to 
the account of the Syriac Verficn. I fhould even 
believe this lafl rather than the former. In {hort, 
if the want of tfiis verfe in that Verfion was a ne- 
ceflkry confequence that it was not in the Greek^ 

the 



( 75 ) 

the fame confequence muft have place in all the o- 
ther pafTagcs, which are wanting to this Vcriionj 
now as the number of thefe paffages is not fmall, 
it would follow that they were not in the Greek 
Copies, when that Verfion was made, which yet 
is very falfe. Mr. Simon tells us, that the other 
Oriental Verfions, the Arabkk^ the Coptick^ the 
Perfian^ were made from the Syriac : now as there 
is not one of thefe Verlions which does not want 
fome pafiage, it would follow that the fame de- 
fe6ts would be in the Syriac, but the contrary is 
clearly feen by comparing thefe Veriions v/:th that, 
which ferv'd 'em in fome fort for an original. 'Tis 
not then a good reafon to fay that the I'ext of the 
7^'^ WQy[c was not in the Greek Mauufcripts, becaufe 
\ it is not in the Syriac Verfion. 






CHAP. III. 

The paffage of St. ]o\\v\ provd to be genuine 
from the Greek Manujcr'ipts with fome 
particular confiderations upou the Mann- 
fcripts of Laurentius Valla, upon that of 

Complurum, and that of England or the 

Codex Britannicus. 

IT would be very furprizing that two of the three 
parts of the Chriflian World, namely, Europe 
^nd Africk^ fhould have conftantly had m' St. John's 
EpiiUe the Text which fpeaks of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghoft, and that the Italick Ver- 
fion made in the fecond Century from the Greek 
Copies, and the Verfion of Si. Jerom^ exa6lly com- 
par'd with the mofl faithful Manufcripis as Mr. Si- 
mon ov/ns'y it would be, I fay, very furprizing, that 
all thefe forts of Copies fhould have entirely va- 

L i niih'd 



(76J 

nifh'd in thefe latter ages, fo that there fliould not 
be found one from which to make a Greek Edition 
of the New Teftament in favour of a Text fo re- 
comrnendedj yet this its adverfaries pretend. Hear 
them, and one would believe there never were fuch 
Copies, and under pretext that the Libraries in 
England^ France^ Germany^ and Italy^ have fome in 
which this pafTage is not read, they boldly and po- 
fitively conclude, that the Text is not, nor was, 
in any Greek Copy. Thefe fort of conclufions drawn 
from a particular to an univerfal are condemned by 
all Philofophers as falfe and illufory: one or two 
inftances to the contrary are enough to deftroy 
'em. lii the prefent cafe two Manufcripts which 
had this pafiage would hinder that univerfal con- 
clufion, that all the Greek Manufcripts have omit- 
ted it, that it is in none. At moll, they could on- 
ly oppofe the great number of chofe, where it is 
not, to the fmall number of thofe where it would 
bcj but even this decides nothing: Mr. Simon 
fhall here again fpeak for me : JVe mufl prefer^ ° fays 
he, the fewer number of Greek Copies to the greater^ 
when thefe few Copies are conformable with the mofl 
ancient Latin Fathers, He makes this reafoning 
upon the claufe of the Lord's Prayer, For thine is 
the kingdom^ 2ic. but he did not dream that one 
might make ufe of it againft himfelf in favour of 
the paflage of St. John-y truth made him fpeak it, 
and we reap the profit. We have withal this ad- 
vantage of him in this reafoning, that he has form- 
ed it in oppofition to almoft all the Greek Copies of 
the Lord's Prayer, which except one or two have 
all thefe laft words. For thine is thekingdom^^c, and 
which even by his own confellion are found quo- 
ted in fome ancient Fathers of the Greek Church : 
whereas there is no Father, either Greek or Latin^ 



o Hift. Crit. du Texte Grec. chap, xxxii.^ 

whom 



(77) 



whom they can alledge againft the paflage of St. 
John: fo far from this, that we have feveral Greeks 
who have quoted it, and the Latins have conilantly 
made ufe of it. 

Befides this, there is a great difference betwixt 
the Manufcriprs in which an intire palTage is found, 
and thofe where it is not found at all ; the former 
are a pofitive proof*, the latter form only a diffi- 
culty, a conje6ture: but a pofitive and exprefs 
proof is by no law in the world dcftroy'd by a 
conje£turc, or a fimple difficulty. If this was once 
not received in the World, it would oft happen 
that fads the bed averr'd by pofitive and exprefs 
proofs would be overturned by the difficulties and 
conjedurcs which would be found to urge againfl: 
them. 

To come then to the Greek Manufcripts which 
authorize the Text we are upon to be genuine. I 
have quoted thofe which the learned Critick Lau- 
rentius Valla had carefully colleded in order to 
correft divers faults which he found in the vulgar 
Verfion of the New Teftament. I had faid they 
were feven^ Mr. Emlyn has faid only three. This 
was one of his leaft miftakes in thefe matters j I 
thought he would have recolleded himfelf when I 
had produc'd the exprefs declaration of Valla^ who 
in a Note upon St. John fpeaks of feven Manu- 
fcripts, and who had never faid that he had but 
three > but fince Mr. Emlyn does not fubmit to 
thefe teftimonies, under the fhadow of giving a 
different fenfe to 'em, I will add one word farther 
upon the fubjedj the matter is of no great confe- 
quence, but we mud however pay this honour to 
truth 5 my own will be found in it. 

Erafmus is the perfon, to whom the Publick is 
indebted for the impreffion of Laurent ius Falla's 
Works, the Manufcript of which was forgot in 
a place where the moifture and worms would have 

infallibly 



(78 ) 

infallibly confum'd it. Having drawn it out thence^ 
and read it with all the attention and regard fuch 
a Work deferves, he fays that Falla had feven very 
valuable Manufcripts from which to make his an- 
notations j as he himfelf, fays he, has declared, 
P Laurentius Falla feptem hon^ fidei codices fe [ecu- 
turn fuije teftatur. For this once perhaps MwEm- 
lyn will own that 1 had reafon, and that he had 
none to fay, this can only prove the number of Ma- 
nufcripts he had upon the Gofpcl^ and not upon the E- 
pftle of St. John. I cannot comprehend how he 
could Ibrm to himfelf fuch an illudon, fince at this 
rate one might as well fay, that he had not even 
three, tho' Mr. £,^(y/^ had adopted that fmall num- 
ber: but this is to amufe our felves about trifles. 
The Main of the affair is that Falla had Greek 
Manufcripts o^ Si. John's Eoiflle 5 that he has found 
fault with the Latin Veriion for not having fol- 
lowed the Greek in feveral paOages of that Epiille^ 
that he has withal made an obfervation againil a 
particular word added in that Verfioi^, and which 
was not in the Greek -^ 'cis the word Simus of the 
jfc ^_ of the iii"^ Chapter, Behold^ what manner of 
love the Father has bejiowed upon us^ that we jhould 
he called and be the children of God \ for 'tis thiis in 
the Fulgate. But {-^ys' Laurentius Falla upon this, 
the word he is not in the Greek: the addition of 
this word was of no confequence, yti Falla would 
not let it pafs: how then could fo fevere a Cenfor 
have let go this whole vcrfe of the v^^ Chapter, 
There are three^ that bear record in heaven^ &c, 
which was in the Fulgate^ without making a re- 
mark, that it was not in the Greek^ if in reality 
he did not find it there ? Falla was very attentive 
to the additions, he met with in the Latin Ver- 
iion, to corre61: 'em by the Greek -^ 1 could fill 



? Erafmi Apol, Edit. iN. Teft, 1521. 

more 



(79) 

more than two pages with this fort of obfervati- 
ons, or correflions, which he has made upon the 
Gofpels, the Acls, and the Epi files, if it was ne- 
cefiary to copy 'cm here. Jn this he only follow- 
ed the plan he had form'd for that Work 3 this 
plan did not lead him to fetdown the places where 
the L^tin was found to agree with the Greek : 
faying nothing then of the Text of the witnefTes 
in heaven, 'tis as much as if he had faid, that the 
Greek and the Latin agreed. This reafoning which 
I have urg'd in the Examination of Mr. Emiyns 
Anfwer to my DifTertation, has been but flightly 
glanc'd at in his Reply : he has not touch'd upon 
the main mattery its force always fubfifts: it is e- 
vident 5 there I fix. 

A few years after the death of Laur-entius Valla 
the famous Edition of Cardinal Ximenes was made 
at Complutum in Spain^ of which 1 have already 
fpoke. As we have not a particular account of 
the Manufcripts which were us'd on this occafion, 
and yet lefs of thofe which ferv'd for the edition 
of the Canonical Epiftles, we cannot know exadl- 
ly whether that from which the Text in queftion 
was taken was the only one in which it was found, 
or whether they preferr'd it to the reltj it is with- 
al of very little importance to know it. What is 
certain, is firfl:, that this paflage was printed at a 
time when no one had yet undercook to difpute its 
being genuine j for it was not 'till fome years af- 
ter, and upon the occafion of Erafmus's not infert- 
ing it in his Editions of if 16, and if ip, that they 
began to fufpe6l thefe words might have crept into 
that place of St. John's Epiftle in favour of the 
do6lrme of the Trinity. So that they cannot fay, 
'twas prejudice of party, which prevail'd upon 
Cardinal Ximenes^ or the other learned men who 
were employ'd in that Edition, to forge this Text, 
in order to oppofe it to the Editions of AUhts^ and 

Erafmus, 



(8o) 

Erafmus. Mr. SImo?t has imagin'd, that Ximenes^ 
and thefe Editors, feeing this facred Text in the 
Latin Bible, and not finding it in any Greek Copy, 
that they might not leave this place of the Epiitlc 
empty, and to make the Greek anfwer to the La- 
tin^ forg'd amongft themfelves this new Text. 
I queftion whether Mr. Simon^ who has been fo 
dextrous in inventing fuch turns of cunning would 
have been capable of making ufe of 'em himfelf, 
had he been in the place of Ximenes and the Edi- 
tors: Charity forbins me to pafs fuch a judgment 
upon him J efpecially fince being no longer m the 
World he cannot anfwer for himfelf. But the fame 
charity which I am willing we fhould have for 
him, ought to have hinder'd him from forming fo 
injurious an accufation of an enterprize he had no 
proof of, and againft perfons famous both for their 
dignity and their learning, and whofe probity was 
never brought under any fufpicion. Thus we fee 
that Erafmus^ who, as I have elfewhere obferv'd, 
does not appear to have been prejudic'd in favour 
of the genuinenefs of the paflage of St. John^ has 
iliewn a great refpe61: to the Complutenfian Bible 
with relation to the fame Text j and Robert Ste- 
phens fo much valued it, that he gave it the firft 
place amongd all the Manufcripts which he ufed 
m his Editions of the New Teflament. 

So black an imputation as that of Mr. Simon 
would deferve no other treatment than to be fent 
back to its Author. But becaufe thofe, who main- 
tain this pafTage is not found in any Greek Manu- 
fcripts, are concern'd to let this accufation be cur- 
rent, in order to deflroy the Manufcript of Xime- 
nes^ I would demand of them whether if they had 
a mind to form a Greek paflage, that fhould an- 
fwer to the Latin^ they would have plac'd in that, 
flj T^eTf «f IB gy «Viv, to anfwer to the Latin^ hi tres 
mum funt ? The difference of the fenfe of the 

Greek 



( 8i ) 

Greek and Latin is very evident, and it was fo eafy 
to put in the Greek^ Im ol t^«? 'iv «V/, which is ex- 
preffly what the Latin imports, that 'tis inconcei- 
vable how men of parts, and who were very well 
acquainted with both languages, would have made 
fo grofs a miilake, and fo foreign to their purpofc. 
Since Mr. Emlyn took in hand to anfwer my Dif- 
fertation, in which I had defended the Complnten- 
ftan Manufcript againfl Mr. Simon^ he ought to fig- 
nalize his zeal for this head of the party, and the 
interell which he himfelf takes in his caufe. But 
bccaufe it may be that I did not fufficiently ap- 
ply my felf to {hew the full abfurdity of this grofs 
imputation, I think that as I defign to put an end 
to all thefe matters in this Difcourfe, I ought to 
pafs by nothing that 1 think worthy my obferva- 
tion. 

In this view I fhall again make this obfervation 
upon the Editors of the Complutenfian Bible: as 
they faw that thefe words of their Manufcript, 0/ 
T^«f «V 1^' 2v «(r<, which regularly fpeaking are not 
the fame thing with thofc, ^73; U T^c7f sv «V<, m fome 
meafure corrcfted the notion which Sc. Thomas had 
form'd, tho* without reafon, that thefe words of 
the Latin Verfion, hi tres unum funt^ had been 
added by the Arians at the end of the 7^^ f. they 
plac'd in the margin of their Edition the very 
words of St. Thomas^ fo fincere were they in the 
matter. For what occafion was there for this long 
remark, and the quotation of the pafTage from St. 
Thomas^ if the form of thefe words in their Ma- 
nufcript had not been different from the tres unun% 
funt^ which the Abbat Joachim had abus'd, and 
upon account of which St. Thomas had made the 
obfervation juft mention'd .^ 

I admire divine Providence upon this occafion % 
the firil Greek Manufcript exposed to the World 
by printing, prefcnts us this marvellous Text with 

M thefg 



(82) 

fehefe laft words ol rr^«f eig mv iv «V/, which are taken 
from the 8^^ f. and which in that Edition are 
wanting at the clofe of that Verfe 5 fix years after 
the fame Verfe of the witnefles in heaven appeared 
again in an Edition ot Erafmus^ who finds it in a 
Manufcript different from that of Complutum^ and 
in this Edition the laft words of the 7'^ f» are 
thofe which are pecuhar to it, Sto; qI t^eig tv «V/, 
and the 8^^ f. keeps thofe which belong to it, and 
which the Manufcripts of Erafmus and jlldus had 
kept, ol r^eig eig tv tv eiciv. Laftly comc the Manu- 
fcripts of Robert Stephens^ which have the Text of 
the three witnefTes in heaven , with fome flight 
differences in the Greek articles, but which are no- 
thing to the thing it felf. Thefe fmall variations 
in the Manufcripts of the Greek Editions feem to 
have been fo order'd by Providence, to prevent the 
thought that fome had been copied from the reft, 
and that one fole Manufcript had been the founda- 
tion of all the three, or even that it had been a 
forg'd Manufcript. 

That of Erafmus was the fecond from whence 
the paffage of St. John's Epiftle came into the hands 
of the publick, with a Latin Verfion. Erafmus 
had recovered it from England^ and it was for this 
reafon that he gave it the name of Codex Britan- 
mcus. This Manufcript has met with no better 
treatment than that of Complutum from Mr. Simon 
and Mr. Emlyn : both have treated it as forg'd and 
imaginary. It was a Manufcript fays Mr. Emlyuy 
Which no body has ever feen, nor any other ever 
fpoke of but Erafmus^ either before him, or after 
him, except from what he fays of it himfelf. Mr. 
Simon has not abfolutely denied the reality of this 
Manufcript, nor has he imputed the forgery of it 
to Erafmus 'y he does not deny alfo but that the* 
Text of Sr. John's Epiftle was there fuch as Eraf- 
mus gives it, Well! and have we not then at leaft 

one 



(83) 

one Greek Manufcripc of the pafTage in quedion? 
It feems fo, but Mr. Simon knew foon how to take 
it from US; this, fays he, was no other than a Copy 
from the Greek of the Council of Lateran^ and the 
Greek of this Council, held in liij-.was made from 
the Latin ^ and thus by a little artifice we are 
brought back from the Greek to the Latin^ and con- 
fequently there's no Greek Copy for this Text. ^ I 
have fapp'd the foundation of all thefe Fi6tions, 
which only have their fource from an incorrigible ob- 
ftinacy in rejefting this padlige, and an unlimited 
afTurance to deny the mod certain fads and moft 
undeniably prov*d : my confutation has ftood with- 
out a reply. Mr. Emlyn would have touch'd upon 
it in his firfl piece, and have caft fome blemifh on 
it, but the examination I have made has taken 
from him the defire of returning to it again in his 
laft, which he calls a Reply. The Editors^ ^ fays 
he, of the Complutenfian Bible had no Manufcript 
for this T'ext y Erafmus inferted it in his Edition a- 
gainft his own opinion^ for fear of calumny. This is 
caird deciding'^ and deciding clearly; but to de- 
cide is, is not to anfwer : reafons are demanded, 
and Mr. Emlyn gives none. I do not know what 
he means when he fays that Erafmus inferted the 
paflage o[ Sz. John in his edition of lyii. againft 
his own opinion. If he means the opinion of Eraf- 
mus concerning the genuinenefs of the palllige in 
felf, it is not abfolutely true j Erafmus never decla- 
red againll its being authentick : nothing like it 
will be found either in his Commentary, or in his 
anfwers to Stunica and Ley > all that is fecn there is 
only a kind of perplexity into which the want of 
this paflage in the Manufcripts from which he had 
made his two firfl Editions had thrown him j and 



q Difert. on this paJfa^Cy chap. xi. 
* Re^l, ch. ii. pag. 34. 

Mi the 



. ( 84 ) 

the fame defefi: in a certain old Latin Manufcript 
which he highly valued, to which he join'd what 
he had obferv'd concerning S. Cyril principally, 
that he had not quoted this palTage upon occafions, 
where it would have been very much to his pur- 
pofe. All this held his mind for fome time in doubt 
betv^ixt thefe and the contrary reafons he had for 
believing the Text genuine. Thus when Ley and 
Stunica had wrote againfl; him upon his leaving it 
out of his two Greek Editions, he gives no other 
anfwcr, but that he folio w'd his Manufcripts clofe- 
ly, and that if they would ihew him one which 
had the paflage, he would Itreight put out ano- 
ther Edition, in which it fliould be inferted. Up- 
on this he meets with a Manufcript in England 
where he finds this paflage, and without hefitation 
or offering the leall violence to himfelf, he gives 
it a place m his Edition. By this means he fatisfies 
his confcience, and filences his calumniators, who 
fpread abroad againft him fcandalous reports, as if 
he had meant to favour Arianifm by fupprcfling fo 
plain a Text. Mr. Emlyn Ihould have better ob- 
ferv'd the frank and open condu6t of Erafmus in 
this whole affair, and have thus (hewn fomewhat 
more regard to the judgment he had pafs'd himfelf 
upon the Codex Britannicus. He had fpoke of it 
as of an imaginary Manufcript, forg'd and fuppo- 
fititious i now how can this be reconcil'd with 
what he has juft faid, that Erafmus had produc'd it 
againil his own opinion, for fear of calumny ? But 
what calumny? That he did not infert in a new 
Edition a paffage which he found in a Manufcript 
that no body befides himfelf had ever feen ? Cer- 
tainly Mr. Emlyn did not think of the matter. The 
Manufcript which Erafmus fpoke of really exifted, 
and the Text of St» John was in this Manufcript 5 
to attempt to form doubts in fo clear a cafe is to 
feek for darknefs in broad day. 

CHAR 



( 85 ) 

CHAP. IV. 

0/ Robert Stephens'j* Manufcrlpts, 

WE have feen in the foregoing Chapter the ex- 
treme perplexity in which Mr. Simon and Mr. 
Emlyn are found with reference to the Manufcripts 
of CompJutum and Erafmus 5 they could not ex- 
tricate chemfelves but by denying that the paflage 
of St. 'John was in any of thefe Manufcripts. The 
difficulty is confiderably augmented by the Manu- 
fcripts of Robert Stephens : but here again 'tis the 
fame refuge; they have no other; they muft deny 
that the Text of St. John was in thefe Manu- 
fcripts: but yet Robert Stephens faw it there, and 
took it thence to place it in his Editions. The 
Editions fpeak the paflage to be there! What have 
they to fay to all this ? They muft rack their 
brains, and amafs a heap of trifles, which ferve to 
no other purpofe than to perplex the matter; I 
fhall difpatch 'em in this Treatife, and keep clofc 
to what is caird the trunk of the tree, and leave 
Mr. Emlyn to catch at the branches. 

To this end, I fhall fay but two words upon 
the number of Manufcript Copies in general, which 
Robert Stephens had. They pretend that he had but 
fifteen of this kind, and he fays in his Prefice that 
he had fix teen. / compared ^ fays he, ver^ exatily 
my Edition of the New Tejiament with fixtcen ^very 
old written Copies : the Complutenfian Copy which 
he fpeaks of afterward was a prmted Book, which 
confequently cannot be comprehended in the 
number of fixteen, which Stephens does not call 
by the general name of Manufcripts^ but by the 
particular name of written Copies 3 cum vetujiiffmis 
fedecim SCKIPT/S. 

Beza 



(U) 

Beza had in his hands the Manufcripts of his 
great friend Robert Stephens^ when he went upon 
the Verfion and Notes of the New Teftament, 
and he fays in the Preface to his Editions of if 82. 
and If 89. that he had feventeen Copies oi Robert 
Stephens 'y becaufe he reckoned in this number the 
Complutenftan Copy which Stephens had made ufe 
of. 

In the year ifpS. he put out his lad Edition of 
the fame Book, and fetting down as in the fore- 
going, the Copies he had in hand, he puts down 
nineteen, namely, feventeen of Stephens's^ and two 
others : one was the old Manufcript he had from 
Lyons^ which contain'd the Gofpels and the A6ls, 
which he prefented to the Univerfity o^ Cambridge^ 
where it now is j and the other, which contain'd 
the Epiftles of St. Paul^ was that which he calFd 
the Copy of Clermont^ which is at prefent in the 
French King's Library, 

Mr. Emlyn has gone'fo far as to deny that Beza 
faw and read thefe Manufcripts, and